1951-02-22

[Stage Direction]
Canada's contribution to western

Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister based upon the statement made to this house at six o'clock yesterday afternoon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton).
In view of the fact that a decision has been reached to comply with the request to send the special brigade group to Korea, will the Prime Minister inform the house what steps the government is taking to create the forces which it has undertaken to send to Europe under the agreement with the North Atlantic treaty organization?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: It is rather unusual, I think, to have questions at this stage; but since the question has been asked I will say that I was handed the hon. gentleman's letter just as I came into the house. It is practically in the terms of the question he has formulated, and I can only say that at this time there is nothing I can add to the information communicated to the house on February 5 by the Minister of National Defence. The decision to complete at an early date the sending of the special brigade to Korea is in accord with the announcement made in the house at the end of the last regular session. When decisions about special formations have been arrived at by the government, they will be communicated to the house, in accordance with the undertaking I gave hon. members on June 30 last.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39, to incorporate Traders General Insurance Company.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 40, respecting the Dominion Association of Chartered	Accountants.-Mr. Jeffery.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. Fraser:: 1.	How many feet of movie film were processed in the laboratories of the national film board of Canada during the year 1949-1950?
2.	Of this footage processed, how many feet were processed for departments of the government?
3.	How many feet for each department of the government?
4.	Was any footage processed for commercial purposes or for individuals outside the government service? If so, what amount in each case?
5.	What footage was processed for the film board's own account?
6.	What footage was discarded or not used?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	10,746,861 feet.
2.	1,159,521 feet.
3.	Agriculture, 93,619; Bank of Canada, 10,131; Fisheries, 7,925; Labour, 111,209; Mines and Resources, 86,703; National Defence, 105,848; National Health and Welfare, 584,193; Post Office, 52,834; Reconstruction and Supply, 106,094; Resources and Development, 814; Trade and Commerce, 52; Transport, 99; total, 1,159,521.
4.	Yes. (a) For commercial purposes, 334,417; (b) for individuals, 159,596 (including processing of 149,623 feet of film produced for other governments in collaboration with the national film board).
5.	8,673,683 feet.
6.	419,644 feet.


NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Higgins:: Are statistics being kept of migration of Newfoundland residents to the United States?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Statistics of
emigration from Canada or from any province are not kept by the federal government.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. Knight:: 1.	Will any postal employees in Saskatoon lose their positions as a result of the proposed economy in mail deliveries? If so, how many?
2.	Have any letter carriers there been moved to inside positions? If so, will they replace inside help, and in how many instances?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Survey not yet complete-no definite answer possible.
2.	See answer to No. 1. Any reduction in staff will be spread over whole personnel.
3.	Civil service commission is co-operating with Post Office Department to absorb in other departments post office lay-offs and to reabsorb in Post Office Department where this can be done as result of normal staff turnover.



IMPORTS OF CRANBERRIES

Mr. Nowlan:: What was the quantity and value of all cranberries imported into Canada from the United States during the calendar year 1950?


Mr. Howe:: 3,743,573 pounds; $406,433.



BUREAU OF STATISTICS


Mr. Poulioi:: 1.	Has Mr. Saba (or Sapa), of the Montreal branch of the dominion bureau of statistics ever lived in the town of Chicoutimi in the Saguenay district, or in the district of lake St. John? If so, where, when, and for what period on each occasion?
2.	How many persons does he know in the said town or districts, and what are their names?
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should) like to amend this question by adding two words, so that the first part will read: "Has Mr. Saba (or Sapa, or Zappa)"-


Mr. Speaker:: Question stands.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Brooks:: 1.	As at January 1, 1950, how many veterans were being paid pensions of 50 per cent or more, due to coronary thrombosis and silicosis?
2.	How many of the above were paid on the basis of 100 per cent entitlement as at January 1, 1950?
3.	During 1950, how many enlistment records of those in No. 2 were checked to ascertain if they had any pre-enlistment disability?
4.	As a result of No. 3, how many suffered loss or partial loss of entitlement?


Mr. Mutch:: In asking that this question
be passed as an order for return, I might say that it may happen that records will not disclose all of the information sought by the hon. member. However, the several parts of the question will be answered to the fullest possible extent.



BANK LOANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, of which I have given him notice. Can the minister advise the house of the progress made at the meeting between the governor of the Bank of Canada and the representatives of the chartered banks, of which the minister advised the house on February 16, towards stopping the increase of money through increased bank loans?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minislej of Finance):: I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his question. As I said the other evening, the meetings referred to were between officers of the Bank of Canada and representatives of the chartered banks. I believe it would be appropriate that a statement should be issued by either one or the other, and I believe the Bank of Canada will be issuing a statement within the course of a day or two.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, apparently discussions have been taking place in Australia between representatives of the United States, Australia and New Zealand concerning the possibility of establishing a defensive alliance in the Pacific. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs give the house any information about these discussions, and what the attitude of Canada would be if she were invited to join such an alliance?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secreiary of State for External Affairs):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question It is quite true, as he suggests, that discussions have recently been taking place in Canberra between Mr. John Foster Dulles, representing the United States, and the governments of Australia and New Zealand, concerning the possibility of a defensive alliance between those three countries covering the Pacific. We have had some preliminary information concerning these discussions, but are now awaiting a report from our representatives in Canberra and in Tokyo.

We have not been asked to participate in these discussions, nor have we yet received any information about them from the United States authorities. Until we receive fuller information on this very important matter I would prefer not to say anything more about it.


TUNGSTEN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the government repurchasing the Emerald mine in southeastern British Columbia for the production of tungsten, and if so could the minister give us a brief statement on the matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: During the last war the government opened up a deposit of tungsten in a property known as the Emerald mine. A makeshift mill was erected, and tungsten ore was mined until the end of the war. Upon the conclusion of the war the price of tungsten would not permit the mine to carry on as a commercial operation. After tenders had been invited, it was sold to the Canadian Exploration Company for $950,000, which has been paid.
The demand for tungsten is again active, and we have repurchased that portion of the property which contained the known tungsten values, for a price of $328,000, which is exactly the same amount as was included in the sale price to the present owners. In other words, we bought the tungsten property back at the same price as that at which we sold it. We are now building a more suitable mill. The owners of the Emerald property have been mining lead and zinc, as well as conducting other operations on the property, and they will supervise the installation of the new mill on the tungsten property and operate it for government account.


Howard Charles Green: What is the cost of the new mill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breion South):: In view of the shortage of steel and the urgency of the defence program, can the Minister of Trade and Commerce tell the house whether
Inquiries of the Ministry his department has any plans for expanding the basic steel plant at Sydney, Nova Scotia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About two years ago the department asked all the primary steel producers of Canada to submit plans to the department for expanding their facilities. Suggestions were made. If the plant runs short of basic steel, the suggestion was that it expand its basic steel facilities. If it was short of finishing capacity compared to basic steel, it was asked to expand the finishing capacity. A suggestion was made to Dosco. Since then I have had several conversations with the president of the company. During the course of the last conversation he assured me that a definite proposal would be in my hands shortly, but so far I have not received it. The expansion will take the form of additional finishing capacity, particularly for making rods and wire.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to clear up a misunderstanding arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Fisheries on Tuesday last. At that time I asked him as to the convertibility of sterling in 1951, and I received the wrong impression from his reply. As reported at page 495 of Hansard he stated:
As to convertibility, that was arranged for the current sales.
By that I understood 1951 was meant. I wish the minister would clarify the matter.


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The hon. member for St. John's East gave me notice of his question. On February 20 I made a statement to the house about Newfoundland's fisheries, referring in particular to the shore fish caught in the 1950 season and now moving to market. Following the statement the hon. member for St. John's East asked if "arrangements had been made for convertibility of sterling so far as salt fish is concerned." I presumed that he was referring to the subject under discussion, namely, the current stocks of salted fish, and not fish still swimming in the sea to be caught in 1951; and I therefore replied, "yes". This reply appears to have been taken in some quarters to mean that arrangements for financing next year's exports have been completed. That is not so. The government of course has to look ahead, and I can

Inquiries of the Ministry assure the hon. member that action is currently being taken to find a satisfactory solution to the financing of exports to Europe from the production of the 1951 season.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I ask the minister if he expects that convertibility will be arranged?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Speaker, the hon, gentleman evidently wants to get into trouble again. I would therefore advise him to read my statement in Hansard tomorrow, and he will get his answer.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: In
view of the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to this house last year as to the establishment of a special parliamentary committee on veterans affairs at this session, will the minister inform the house when it is the government's intention to proceed with the establishment of that committee?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: It is still the intention to set up
such a committee. Legislation is in the course of preparation now, and the hon. member can be assured that the committee will be set up in time to deal with the matters referred to it by this house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government considered further the setting up of a special defence committee? If so, can the Prime Minister say definitely whether such a committee will or will not be set up at the present session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot say definitely whether such a committee will or will not be set up during this session.



WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he say when the Canadian wheat board report for 1949-50 will be available?
FMr. Mayhew.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say. I hope it will be available within the next two or three weeks.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into early consideration the advisability of abolishing the tolls imposed and collected on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges over the St. Lawrence river.
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last evening I was about to make a few remarks on this resolution, which was so ably presented by its sponsor, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard).
The resolution has already been read. I am not going to go into the details of it. I want to speak only on the principle of the resolution. Its sponsor certainly excelled himself in his speech. He is well known to the house as one of the greatest debaters the province of Quebec has ever produced; and I congratulate him on his presentation of the subject. The others who followed him spoke in the same language as he did, their native tongue. I am not going to try to make any remarks in that language, because I know that if I got started, someone would shout: ne touchez pas! I am going to try to keep to my native language, be my speech good, bad or indifferent.
The principle of this resolution is the abolition of tolls that have been imposed and collected on certain bridges. What is a toll? On looking the word up in the dictionary I find that a toll is a charge payable for permission to pass a barrier. Any bridge or highway connecting two other highways or towns or villages is always known as a king's highway, whether it is owned federally or provincially; and there can be no barrier, even at any price, placed on a king's highway.
The principle that I want to vote for is the abolition of an old, obsolete system, that of tolls on the king's highways. It matters not who built this bridge, but it does matter who at the present time owns it and where the tolls are going. From what has been said by some of those who have spoken, I understand that it is a three-way division: municipal, provincial and federal. However, the principle of the resolution which has been under discussion is the abolition of the toll; they do not want tolls any more. It is certainly obsolete to have them.

The reason I am supporting the resolution is this. One of the hon. members who spoke said that if on these two bridges the tolls were abolished, there would be no other bridges in Quebec exacting tolls from the people; there would be no more toll bridges in that province. The point I want to make -and I wish it had been attached to this resolution-has to do with the toll bridge across the Hillsborough river between Charlottetown and Southport, Prince Edward Island. Prior to the building of that bridge there was a ferry system for the accommodation of the public. The bridge was built to accommodate the railway that was built from Southport to Murray Harbour, and it was supposed to be wide enough to take care of vehicular traffic as well. When building this bridge for the railway, the government said that it would be a toll bridge. The provincial government of that time did not wish it to be a toll bridge. However, the toll had to be paid, and the provincial government, rather than discriminate against people living on the south side of the river, decided, out of the taxpayers' money, to pay the toll and also to keep in repair the planking on both sides of the rails for a length of over a mile. That toll, together with the repairs, amounts to some $10,000 a year. The principle is wrong, just the same as it is with reference to the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges.
During the last forty-six years this bridge, which was obsolete when it was put there because it was a secondhand bridge from some place up the Restigouche, has cost $10,000 a year. The bridge was obsolete forty-five or fifty years ago; today it is condemned as unsafe for heavy traffic, and freight traffic has to be routed over another line down through Murray Harbour.
As a province we should not have to continue paying this amount of almost $10,000 annually, as we have done for nearly forty-six years. In other words, we have paid the cost of the bridge twice over, and have nothing in the end but a bridge condemned in the first instance for heavy traffic, and now condemned for automobile traffic and trucks as well.
I urge upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), although it does not come within the scope of this resolution, that he consider giving us the right to do away with the payment of this $10,000 a year for a bridge that is now condemned by the railway people themselves.


Mr. T. P. Healy (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest yesterday to the complete and eloquent plea made by the hon.
Tolls on Quebec bridges member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) regarding the toll payable on the Victoria bridge. This bridge is in my riding. I believe toll has been collected on it for the past seventy-five years, and it would be a great benefit to the people of Montreal if this toll were eliminated.
My purpose in rising is to support the resolution of the hon. member. I hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) will make a special effort to give this important matter every consideration. I concur in all the remarks which have been made by hon. members from Montreal in support of this resolution.
(Translation):


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I listened with deep interest to the
speeches made yesterday and this afternoon in connection with this resolution which appears on the order paper and reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into early consideration the advisability of abolishing the tolls imposed and collected on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges over the St. Lawrence river.
This resolution was very well discussed by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard) who has been requesting such action for several sessions, as well as by the other members who have supported it. The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville put this motion on the order paper several times because he believes the settling of this matter is important to his electors and to the great many people living on the south shore who use these bridges to cross the St. Lawrence river.
However I must point out to the house that there are two sides to the question involved in this resolution. There is the legal side and the practical side.
Before going any further on this matter I wish to offer the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville my special congratulations for the manner in which he has introduced his resolution. It makes it unnecessary for me to repeat the arguments he has advanced and which I could very well make mine under the circumstances.
But let us consider the two aspects of this matter. First, we must examine the legal aspect. It should be borne in mind that there is an agreement between three parties: the national harbours board, through its predecessor the Montreal harbour commission, the municipality of the city of Montreal and

Tulls on Quebec bridges the province of Quebec. Certain members seemed to forget, in the discussion this afternoon and yesterday, this agreement whereby three governments, federal, provincial and municipal have undertaken to pay one-third of the cost of maintenance providing it does not exceed the amount of $150,000 a year.
As was so ably stated last night by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, the city of Montreal stopped paying its share at least since 1944. It was therefore necessary to take action against the city of Montreal. A decision was brought down in favour of the national harbours board, but the matter is now before the court of appeal.
It is now a matter of deciding whether tolls should be abolished and if from now on costs should be charged to the federal government, the provincial government, or the city of Montreal.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) on his speech, in which he said something to the effect that the toll system is detrimental to the people of the province of Quebec and that the dominion government should assume its cost.
I do not think there can be any disagreement in principle as to the elimination of tolls. In principle we favour doing away with the toll system. There is no difficulty on that point. But we have to decide who should bear the costs. As regards jurisdiction, moreover, the three parties have already come to an agreement. To my mind, tolls cannot be removed unless there is some agreement on the procedure to be followed. It goes without saying that, for the time being, this agreement concerns only the Jacques Cartier bridge. Nor should hon. members forget that the agreement which related to the building of the Montreal bridge, the Jacques Cartier bridge, was signed following the enactment of a statute by the house, the passing of legislation by the provincial legislature and the approval of a minute by the city of Montreal.
Therefore, I submit that the suppression of the tolls would necessitate the agreement of the three parties concerned.
We must also consider the practical side of the matter which is no less important than its legal aspect. In 1950, the national harbours board collected, I believe, $1,200,000 in tolls on Jacques Cartier bridge. As for Victoria bridge, I cannot give you any idea of the amount collected since it is buried in the accounts of the Canadian National Railways.


What I mean is this. It is not easy for the national harbours board or for the Canadian National to give up without further ado revenues exceeding a million dollars.
Hon. members are constantly asking that we reduce expenditures. How would they explain the relinquishment of such an important source of income? That is the practical side of the matter. The money would have to be found elsewhere.
If we give up this source of revenue, the house will have to find means of collecting the money needed to wipe out the deficit that would inevitably follow. In other words, we would have to impose an additional burden on every citizen.
As regards Victoria bridge, I have already informed the house that, on the condition mentioned in Hansard, the Canadian National Railways were ready to consider the removal of tolls now levied. The Canadian National has already indicated its approval of legislation that would do away with tolls for noncommercial passengers. The removal of tolls is based on the contingency of a satisfactory agreement with the province. This agreement would compensate the Canadian National for monetary losses sustained and would also protect its interests.
I do not believe the house would wish to proceed on any other basis because, after all, if we gave up revenue adding up to $1 million or $2 million, we would have to find it elsewhere.
(Text):
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might sum up briefly and rapidly what I have said, so that the house may know the nature of the resolution which seeks the abolition of tolls on two bridges crossing the St. Lawrence river at Montreal, namely the Victoria and the Harbour bridge.
The reasons I have submitted, one the legal and the other practical, indicate that it is impossible to consider the abolition of these tolls at this time unless there is some agreement with the parties concerned, namely the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal, and the national harbours board.
I have already stated in the house on one occasion, if not on two, that the federal government, through its agency, the national harbours board, is prepared to receive representations and, if need be, to enter into negotiations for the abolition of these tolls. But

it must be understood that the abolition could not be made at the exclusive expense of the federal government.
The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, who has so well presented his motion, ably supported by other members from the south shore and elsewhere, may feel that the object they had in mind, namely, a full discussion of the important question of the abolition of tolls on these bridges, has served its purpose. If the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville feels that the motion has served that purpose, perhaps he would give consideration at this time to withdrawing it.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that when the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville speaks, he will close the debate.


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), and upon his assurance that the two agencies of government involved, namely, the national harbours board and the Canadian National Railways, are both ready to negotiate with the other parties concerned for the abolition of the tolls; and in view of the further fact that the Minister of Transport has renewed the assurance that he intends to renegotiate the question with authorities in the provincial government, I am ready to withdraw the motion.
I know that in speaking now I close the debate; but I should like very much to learn from the minister whether he has already received from the provincial government any information as to the possibility of negotiations for the abolition of these tolls.


Lionel Chevrier: Since the delegation waited upon me, some two years ago I believe it was-it may have been only one year; the hon. member will recall-there have been no representations made by anyone in connection with the abolition of the tolls. I believe it would be unwise to attempt representations with one party, at least until the litigation has been settled.


Roch Pinard: I would add only this. The city of Montreal has already passed numerous resolutions asking the federal government, and I believe also the provincial government, to negotiate for the abolition of the tolls. So far as one of the parties to the agreement is concerned, therefore, the city of Montreal, the expression of opinion has been clearly given. I will accept the assurance that negotiations will be entered into with the
Tolls on Quebec bridges government of the province of Quebec to the end that a solution of this problem may be brought about.
In withdrawing my resolution I wish to say that if nothing has been done by that time, I shall propose the same resolution next year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw his motion?


Mr. Knowles:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the unanimous wish of the house that the motion be withdrawn?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion (Mr. Pinard) negatived on division.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knight:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that when the hon. member speaks he will close the debate.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words before the debate closes. First of all, I fully expected some member of the government would make a statement before the vote is taken.


An hon. Member:: Ready, right here.


James Arthur Ross: I will take my seat if any minister wishes to speak now on the resolution.


Alphonse Fournier: Go ahead.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is to bring to the attention of the government the desirability of equalizing educational opportunity across Canada.

Education
This matter has been debated for several sessions, and I have spoken at some length on every similar proposal that has been before the house. I might say that I was disappointed on May 22 last to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) speak at some length in opposition to a similar resolution. It was disappointing to hear members of the government express themselves as they did at that time.
I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of education has been a vital issue for many years in the province of Manitoba from which I come. The municipal corporations have had to provide for the cost of education by a levy on real estate that averages $3 for every $1 provided by the government of Manitoba. Everyone must realize chat you cannot have equality of educational opportunity under such a system. It is just impossible.
This has been a vital issue at the last three annual gatherings of the municipal convention of Manitoba, and also at the annual convention of the trustees of Manitoba. It has been a vital issue for some years. By contrast I should like to indicate what has been done in Ontario. I would remind the house that the leader of this party, when he was premier of Ontario and minister of education, provided for very progressive legislation for education in the province of Ontario. In some school districts the province finances as much as ninety per cent of the cost. We have an important comparison right there. I should like to quote one paragraph from a speech made by my leader in this house on a similar resolution, to be found at page 944 of Hansard of October 19, 1949. He said:
There is, however, this important consideration which cannot be emphasized too often. Even if we built in Canada the finest schools that have ever been constructed anywhere, we would have done nothing to advance our educational standards unless those who are teaching in those schools are highly qualified to teach the children that come under their direction. For that reason, wherever the school may be and whatever type of school may be under consideration, the effort of all those concerned with the advancement of education in Canada should be to raise to a level that is in keeping with their responsibility the salaries of those to whom we are entrusting to a considerable extent the whole future of Canada.
There is a lot of meaning in that statement which was placed on the record by the leader of this party when a similar resolution was before this house on a previous occasion.
I do not want to take time to repeat the arguments that have been made in this debate and that I have placed on the record

in the course of debates in the past on similar resolutions. But I want to emphasize the fact that real estate cannot properly provide for the cost of education, and certainly cannot provide for equality of educational opportunity in this country. It is just an utter impossibility, and it should not be expected to do so.
I support wholeheartedly this resolution. I hope that we are to be permitted to vote on it this afternoon, and that the house will endorse it. It is one of the most important matters that can engage the attention of Canadians in these times. It is important because it aims at the providing of equality of educational opportunity for the young people of this land. They are the people who will be responsible for this country in the years to come, and I know of nothing more important.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I should like to make on this resolution. Perhaps I have an obligation in a personal way, as I happen to be on the board of trustees of a university which hopes to be one of the beneficiaries of the plan which we hope is under consideration. In passing, I should like to associate myself with what has been said previously about provincial responsibility in connection with education. To put it mildly, we have been encouraged to hope that the time will soon come when consideration will be given to us and to other universities.
I might say just one word about our university, to indicate the problem which affects us and which in varying degree affects other people as well. More than a century ago Queen's university at Kingston was founded by the Presbyterian church. I am quick to say that there never has been any religious test, except that for the first few decades the university constitution required that the principal should be a minister of the Presbyterian church. As time went on it became difficult to carry on the affairs of the university, although we were receiving generous assistance from people of all creeds. Some forty years ago the difficulties of financing became so great that the Presbyterian church, with great generosity, handed the university over to the public. Since then there have been no religion tests of any kind, not even of the principal.
We have tried to paddle our own canoe as best we could. We believe we have a loyal body of graduates. Sometimes I fear we become a little tiresome to other people by talking about the loyalty of our graduates. But it is a real thing, and they have helped us, not merely with words but with deeds. We have received generous subscriptions; in fact

Education
at the present time we are trying to get the beneficence of the graduates on an annual basis by having them make annual gifts.
Notwithstanding all that, great difficulties still exist. Not only do they exist, they are increasing. Taxation of all kinds makes it more difficult as the years go by to get outside assistance. Since we separated ourselves, almost forty years ago, from any technical connection with the Presbyterian church, we have received generous aid from the province of Ontario. As I have indicated, we have done our best to increase our own resources, and of course fees also play a large part. But the difficulty is still great.
I should like to take a few minutes to indicate a special form that that difficulty has taken. I do this because it is something that alarms me. I think I can best indicate what I have in mind by referring briefly to a remark made not long ago by the president of the university of Toronto, Dr. Sidney Smith, in connection with the ever-recurring question of university salaries. I think we all ought to feel responsible for the fact that our teaching profession is not treated better than it is. I think one of the best tests of the level of the civilization of any community is the way they treat the teaching profession. If the teaching profession is well treated, that is evidence of a high state of civilization. Dr. Smith recently made a statement in connection with salaries, and said that he was afraid they were going to be driven to paying less to those professors who deal with what might be called the non-vocational subjects, that is, subjects which you do not cash in on the day you leave the university. These are the subjects, of course, which once were regarded as the extreme and almost the exclusive object of education.
I am sure Dr. Smith made that suggestion only with the greatest regret. Dr. Cyril James of McGill university said that a double standard, as he called it, would be a matter of grave loss to Canadian universities; and from communicating with him I know that our own principal at Queen's university, Dr. Wallace, who is well known in university circles, has exactly the same feeling.
I want to develop this a little because the very fact that this could happen suggests to me that our attitude toward education might well be very carefully considered. Let me remind you too, Mr. Speaker, that professors other than those teaching what we usually call the humanities find it much easier to supplement their university salaries. Doctors teaching in universities for the most part have their professional incomes as well. Engineers and other vocational teachers have
a much greater opportunity to add substantially to their incomes by doing various kinds of expert work during the vacation. Not only are they to have that advantage, but Dr. Smith is even constrained to suggest that in addition they might perhaps have higher salaries than other professors.
The best teachers, of course, do not teach because of the money. I remember an old professor of mine who was getting me to help him with his income tax one day. He was then getting the munificent salary of $6,000 a year; that was in Toronto. He said, "Think of that, Jim. We never got that at Kingston in those days. Think of me getting $6,000 a year. Why, in the old days at Queen's I would have been glad to have $2,000 and to be sure that would not shrink." I said, "I don't agree with that at all. You should have the salary of a bank president." He replied, "But look at the kind of work I am doing. Why, if I were a man of means I would pay a premium to be allowed to do it." That spirit is not universal, of course; nevertheless it is present, or we would not have the men we have carrying on this work.
I want to take just a few minutes of the time of the house to say a word about this subject, and to quote a remark made by the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) the other day, part of which I applaud most heartily and with part of which I want to disagree. After referring to various minerals which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) had said we needed, the hon. member went on to add, at page 473 of Hansard:
Our war effort will fail if we do not secure supplies of these vital strategic war metals from some place in the world.
Of course that is true. Then he went on:
I think we might very well encourage the mining schools at Queen's university-
And of course that is true.
-the university of British Columbia and elsewhere across this country, so that research might be carried on-
And that is true, too; I would not disagree with a word of it. Then this is the part I want to question, if I understand the hon. member correctly. He went on to say:
So my suggestion is that we leave these academic discussions and speeches, which were popular in the earlier days when we were not faced with the severe trials now ahead of us, and become more objective.
I am very glad the hon. member was so frank, because I believe that view is widely held. If I understand the hon. gentleman correctly he is really saying, by implication, that life is real and earnest now; that we have to deal with these material things, and have to set the other things aside. If that

Education
were to happen for three months or six months, though it is extremely difficult to see how it could be done, one might feel that perhaps it had to be considered; but in the situation in which we find ourselves, when we do not know how long it is going to last, I would suggest two things to the hon. member. First of all I would suggest that, perhaps to an extent we can hardly realize and certainly we can never prove, the present plight in which we find ourselves is due to the fact that for some time we have disregarded these things. I say to him further that if this testing time through which we are passing now should last five years or ten years, as it may, then it seems to me there never was a time when we were in so much need of these things which the hon. member says in effect cannot now occupy the attention of serious men in an emergency. I do not wish to press his words unduly because I think I understand the way in which he meant them.
Pursuing that subject just a little further I should like to quote some words, grave words, you may think exaggerated words, which nevertheless come from a high source, Mr. Walter Lippmann, a man whose opinions we value. These comments were made some years ago with respect to education in the United States. I stress the fact that it was education in the United States. I am sure also that what I am about to read will not apply to certain universities that have tried to keep the flag of real education flying, but I ask hon. members to listen to these comments, which are quite brief, and ask themselves whether in fact Mr. Lippmann does not utter a grave warning.
I want to digress for a moment, because I wish to read the words used by Dr. Sidney Smith of the university of Toronto before I quote Mr. Lippmann. This is Dr. Smith's last report, which appeared just a few weeks ago. He deals with this matter, and I want to refer briefly to what he has to say so that when I read the quotation from Mr. Lippmann hon. members will have in mind the words used by Dr. Smith:
Any claim that the university is offering a liberal education to all its students must be based in considerable measure on the emphasis given to the humanities. It is relatively easy to obtain financial support for the physical and biological sciences. Public interest in the social sciences, for example, economics, is high and it is increasing. Canadians pay lip service to the humanities but frequently their tribute ends there.
Now, reiterating my warning that these comments by Mr. Lippmann are directed to education in the United States and also that I think many universities, particularly those which have maintained close association with

churches, do not come under this condemnation to anything like the extent others do, I read these short passages. Mr. Lippmann says:
The thesis which I venture to submit to you is as follows:
That during the past forty or fifty years those who are responsible for education have progressively removed from the curriculum of studies the western culture which produced the modern democratic state.
I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that that is a plain statement of fact; that the institutions by which we live were produced by this western culture which Lippmann argues we are now disregarding. Then he goes on:
That, deprived of their cultural tradition, the newly educated western men no longer possess in the form and substance of their own minds and spirits, the ideas, the premises, the rationale, the logic, the method, the values or the deposited wisdom which are the genius of the development of western civilization.
Then he adds:
That the prevailing education is destined, if it continues, to destroy western civilization and is in fact destroying it.
Again I remind hon. members that those words were not addressed to us, but I suggest we might well consider them. There is only one other short quotation I should like to read:
Modem education, however, is based on a denial that it is necessary or useful or desirable for the schools and colleges to continue to transmit from generation, to generation the religious and classical culture of the western world.
As I say, those are grave words, and I have read them to the house because I believe we live in grave times. We talk quite often about our way of life, and equally often in vehement phrases of detestation of this strange new madness, as it seems to us, that has arisen and to which we are opposed. We speak of it as fanaticism, but if you look up the dictionary meaning of "fanaticism", you will And that there is a kind of belief, even though it is a mistaken belief, included in it. This recalls to mind some very searching words used by a well known journalist in western Canada, Bruce Hutchison. Speaking about this very problem some eighteen months ago he uttered words which I have never been able to get out of my mind. I hear people talking about our way of life, and I have often wondered whether it means motor cars, hockey matches, and all that kind of thing. What else does it mean? Incidentally, Mr. Hutchison pointed out that in this strange and horrible fanaticism, as we regard it, there is a certain element of faith-I believe he used the word "faith" and if not I adopt it as my own. Then he

Education
said that we may be in danger of finding that we are opposing the communist something with a nothing.
I should like to add one thing, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that those of us who are older have inherited a kind of spiritual legacy from our fathers, a legacy of the rule of law, and all the other things which have gone into making up life. We have now drifted into a situation where these things are no longer as clear as they used to be. I have often thought of a wise remark made by a former governor general, Lord Tweedsmuir, to the effect that our difficulty is not to choose between right and wrong, but to choose between two rights. It seems to me we are now confused by the number of problems that are facing us. As the member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) said, we have to have regard for all those material things which are necessary for our salvation'. I suggest also that in the end it is morale that is going to count, and in the end morale depends on morals. It depends on having something we really and truly do believe. I go back therefore, Mr. Speaker, to this question of education, and I do urge that we remind ourselves, as Lippmann says, that true education does not exist without a real knowledge or understanding of this civilization in which we live, and which is based on western culture.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said by members from the opposite side of the house that they do not wish to have this resolution talked out. During this session, however, according to my calculations there have been twenty-two speakers on this question, and about eighteen of them have been from the opposition. I do not propose to take very much of the time of the house, therefore, because I may be accused of attempting to talk out the resolution. Certainly, there is plenty of time ahead of us, so we can be sure it will not be talked out.
I did not come prepared to speak on this question this afternoon. I thought a labour bill would be coming up, and I was prepared to discuss it. I regret that it has been subordinated to this other important question of giving the provinces assistance in the matter of education. Everyone who has spoken from the Conservative party benches, and the C.C.F., has spoken in favour of this resolution. Being in favour of it, they have not advanced any of the reasons why the members who support the government should have any objections to such a resolution. I am opposing this resolution at this time. In opposing the resolution I do not wish to indicate in any way that I feel education is not of primary importance. I believe, in fact,
that it has been the No. 1 factor in our survival as a great nation. Throughout the discussion no one has attempted to separate their arguments on the value of education from the manner in which it should be administered.
I cannot see how it will be possible to reduce the cost of education and, at the same time, increase the opportunity for education merely by putting the responsibility upon the federal government. The B.N.A. Act provides that education is a provincial responsibility. Everyone is familiar with the principle that a line has no end, and can be extended to any length. If education is the primary responsibility of the provinces, then by extending this line we would be creating a precedent, and we have no reason for assuming that other provincial responsibilities may not, at some future date, be brought to the door of the federal authority. It is my humble opinion that the federal government should raise sufficient funds through taxation to carry out its responsibilities as a federal authority, and not to interfere in such matters.
Who are the people who are requesting this federal aid? We have resolutions from school boards, and we have resolutions from the teachers' associations. In many instances school boards have found that in building new schools they have to expend more money than the fields of taxation now open to them will allow. I know that the teachers' federations fully appreciate the difficulties of the school boards. They are the employee group, however, and I have a feeling that their primary concern in the matter of federal aid is the hope that it will increase the rate of pay to their profession. If the federal authority is to make grants directly for educational purposes, have we any assurance that the cost to the taxpayer will be less? It will merely mean that the money will be taken from him by the federal authority, paid into the national. treasury, and returned to the provinces.
Is that necessary? If the federal authority is raising more money or is bringing into the treasury more money than it finds necessary for purely federal matters, I would suggest either that they relinquish their tax fields to the provinces or reduce certain direct taxation which will leave the individual taxpayer with a little more money with which he can pay his land or property taxes. The fact that the people in the municipalities are going to be responsible for the raising of the money which they spend on schools is a natural deterrent in the matter of the ways in which they carry out these

Education
responsibilities. They claim now-and possibly with truth-that they cannot raise enough money by taxing property and land. However, if the federal authority were to leave just a little bit more money in the hands of the property owners, through a reduction in taxation, there is no reason why the municipal authorities cannot increase their mill rate and obtain more money in that way. As I say, however, they are deterred, because they know it is a tax which appears on their statements from year to year and they find it hard, possibly, to raise it. As I say, there is a certain curb there and we can be assured that money will not be spent too recklessly in any of these ways.
The hon. member who introduced this resolution suggested that the reason given by the government for not putting forward a proposal for federal aid to education was that there would be a dominion-provincial conference. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) asks some questions of the minister; I presume it is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as we have no minister of education at this time and presumably we shall not need one unless we carry out the suggestions that have been brought forward from time to time by the opposition. As reported at page 472 of Hansard he asked the Prime Minister these questions:
Were any suggestions put forth by the federal or provincial governments? Is the government in favour of or opposed to federal support for elementary, secondary and university education?
That indicates that it is his intention that this resolution will go down to the very basis of our education, to grade I. In reading over the minutes of that meeting-I may be wrong; I have not had time to go through it all again-I do not recall that any provincial premier asked directly for federal aid to education. I hope-and I feel quite confident that this is so-that our Prime Minister did not search and try to find ways in which he could spend more money out of the federal treasury by offering assistance to the premiers with regard to their various problems. I do not think that was expected of him, and I am quite sure he did not do so. If he were looking for ways of disposing of the funds in the federal treasury, I am sure he would not have the confidence that he now enjoys.
The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) who introduced this resolution gave us one reason why some members oppose it:
One argument that I have heard raised is the fear of the provinces that the federal government will begin to meddle with education in the provinces if it supports general education. I fail to see any
[Mr. Byrne.)
validity in that argument. Through the war years the government co-operated with the provinces in numerous educational enterprises.
And so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That just happens to be the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). It is perfectly all right. Give it to the right member, though.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That was a quotation from the hon. member for York South, and it may be found at page 472 of Hansard.
I do not share the apprehension of other hon. members that the federal authority will meddle with educational matters in the provinces. As a matter of fact, I would not fear if they were to take over the full control of education. The British North America Act, however, does not provide for such an eventuality and it certainly is not what is being asked. It is, however, quite possible- and indeed probable-that should a socialist government take over in Canada, they would immediately assume the full responsibility for the matter of education throughout the entire country. To carry out their doctrine, they would of necessity control the entire education of Canada.


Mr. Wright:: Will the hon. member permit a question? On what authority does he base that statement?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The necessary and common law of socialism. They would in every country.


Percy Ellis Wright: You mean that is just a private expression of opinion.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: They would exercise authority over the thinking of the people. If the hon. member will excuse me, I should like to continue. When I am through, if there are any questions, I should then be glad to answer them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go back in off that limb.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I believe that education is of primary importance. I do not see how we can at this time increase the possibilities for young people to obtain more education by simply granting assistance to the provincial authorities. The hon. member for Saskatoon who introduced this resolution also stated, as reported at page 463 of Hansard:
But I believe that co-operation between the dominion government and the provincial governments can bring about now some measure of that for which I speak, and we shall all be looking forward to the day when, quite irrespective of marking or tagging funds for any particular purpose, there will be an equitable arrangement in Canada for the distribution of public funds.
That possibly is a desirable situation. By "public funds" I presume he means funds

from the national treasury. That statement would indicate that the hon. member for Saskatoon feels that the federal authority should become a collecting agency to hand money to what, in my opinion, in some cases may be irresponsible provincial authorities.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in reply to the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Byrne). I have been amazed to hear the declarations made by him, particularly as to the situation in British Columbia with respect to our municipalities. I am surprised that the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) or the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mott) or both have not risen in their places to expound to you the truth regarding education in our province.	[DOT]


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for Fraser Valley did.


Mr. Cruickshank:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have already spoken once. I should be delighted to answer the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne).


Owen Lewis Jones: This suggested resolution deals with assistance to the provinces. I would go further. I would like to see tagged onto it the proviso that the bulk of the money should be earmarked for the use of the municipalities. I feel that, in British Columbia particularly, we have a problem that is probably greater than that of any of the other provinces in Canada, because of the rapid growth of the population of that province in the last ten years. Both our climate and other physical conditions of the province have brought numerous people to that part of the country rather than settling on the flat lands of the prairies, with the result that our school needs have exactly doubled in the last ten years. The different districts have formed themselves into what are known as school districts in order to consolidate the educational facilities in the area.
They have made a marvellous job of consolidating. In British Columbia today we have possibly the best schools on the North American continent. This state of affairs has come about through the excellent work done by the board of education in its consolidating program. The schools that we are building are modernized; their equipment is modern, and the teachers' standards are far improved over what they were ten or twenty years ago; but we are still trying to finance our modern education by the horse and buggy method of the red school era of financing. That is, we are trying to finance basically
Education
from the land. It is true that was the best method, and possibly the logical one, years ago when land was considered the basis of wealth. But land is no longer considered the basis of wealth. Bonds, stocks, shares and other valuables have replaced land as the basis. Therefore, we should reconsider whether land is a sound basis for levying taxes for any purposes, especially for education. It has no relation to the ability of the owner of the land to pay. It bears no relation to the earning capacity of that piece of land to produce revenue to pay, and is a cause of constant discontent in every province in Canada on the part of the farmer, the home owner, and the land owner who must bear the cost of education.
Some municipalities in our province-and I take it to be true all across Canada-find that from 50 per cent to 75 per cent of their imposed taxes are levied for school purposes, leaving a very small percentage of the levied taxes to carry on other work such as road work, improvements, sidewalks, development works, water works, and so on, so that municipalities are very hard pressed.
The last speaker suggested they could raise the mill rate. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the municipalities of British Columbia have not only raised the mill rate in many cases to the limit allowed by law, but they have also increased the assessed values of the properties so taxed, so that the people cannot bear the burden much longer.
In the first place, for the reasons I have expounded, I do not believe that a tax on land for education is a fair one. The only taxes that should be a direct charge on land are those charges such as roads, supplying that land with access, sidewalks, sewers, water mains, light and so on. The direct charges on land should be those services rendered to that land, and not something negative, as far as land is concerned, such as education. But I am afraid that those school taxes on land will remain until the federal government comes to the assistance of the various provinces.
I hold in my hand a copy of Saturday Night of January 30 which contains an article written by a gentleman who I understand is a teacher. His name is Percy J. Kennedy. He has given a good summing up of the situation so far as my point of view is concerned. Not only are the municipalities hard pressed and incapable of meeting their obligations to the full, but they are suffering, as a result, as are our whole educational systems, plus the personnel who are carrying on a notable work

Education
in educating our children. I should like to quote from this article as follows:
Taxation levied on property assessment only, for school purposes, is no longer adequate. Glaring inequalities in educational opportunity exist among the provinces and between different parts of the same province and municipality.
These inequalities result from differences in taxpaying ability, wealth, income, and the relative number of children to be educated.
Not only have the provinces very unequal abilities to support education, but also they have very unequal educational burdens. The poorer provinces have more children in proportion to the adult population. Consequently, the poorer provinces and communities make a proportionately much greater financial effort to pay for schools than the richer ones. In spite of this greater effort, the results are totally inadequate and are reflected in poorly-trained teachers, low salaries, barren curricula, and wretched school buildings. This situation is illustrated by some pertinent facts contained in a brief submitted to the dominion government by the Canadian Teachers' Federation in February, 1949.
I quote from the brief:
(a)	One out of every ten teachers in Canada holds only a permit or temporary certificate.
(b)	The average salary of rural teachers throughout Canada is $1,207 per annum while urban teachers' salaries average $2,120. (These figures do not include Quebec or Newfoundland.)
(c)	The median teachers' salaries for the year 1947 range from $816 in Prince Edward Island to $2,042 in British Columbia.
(d)	At the end of 1947 there were 1,700 fewer teachers in Canada than there were in 1939.
(e)	In April, 1948, approximately 22,000 pupils in two provinces were receiving their education through correspondence courses because of the lack of teachers.
One of the standard arguments against federal aid for education is "Where are we going to get the money?" Well, in these days of billions for armaments and widespread public spending for other purposes, it would be strange indeed if the federal government could not provide the relatively small amount needed.
I would recommend the complete article to any hon. member who is interested enough to read it later on. I entirely agree with the article. I	agree	that if	you want to getteachers of a	high	calibre	in	the teaching[DOT]profession you	have	to pay	the	price. While$2,000 sounds	high	in British	Columbia, a
man with the qualifications of a teacher, the holder of a B.A., an M.A. or some other degree could easily go into industry and get three times that amount for possibly easier and steadier work and a better pension.
Yesterday, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) mentioned that 130,000 veterans had been taught through government assistance since the last war. He commended the effort of the government in that regard. I also commend it. I think the government did an excellent job in training the returned men through these university courses, but I also reflect this way: If the. incidence of war and its conclusion discloses the fact that we

have 130,000 young men thirsting for knowledge and capable of absorbing it, and the government recognizes that fact and gives them facilities to acquire that knowledge, it is a splendid thing. But the government's policy of assistance ends immediately when the veteran has completed his education, and the excellent idea involved in training our youth and giving them a higher education is lost sight of. My case is that we have the same thirst for knowledge from approximately an equal number of young men and women in peace as we had in war, and we should take the same care and accept the same responsibility for having them sent to our universities. However, in this instance they meet with frustration because they have not the means to carry on their ambition to enter university life.
It may be said that our universities are not capable of taking care of any more than they have at the present time. I would draw attention to the fact that in British Columbia we had a university capable of taking care of only 3,500 students; but immediately students were available and the need was there the funds were available, and in a few months the university increased its capacity so as to take care of 8,000 veterans and to give them a first-class education. The same can be done in peacetime, if the need is there- and I know it is there-if the wherewithal is given by the federal government to meet the cost of this type of education. This will make not only fine students but eventually much finer citizens of those young people who can absorb that education.
There is no legal barrier. I believe the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) made it quite clear that the legal barrier is nonexistent. It was overcome in the case of the veterans and in the case of technical schools, and in connection with other assistance already rendered by the government.
I can assure the house that any type of aid in any form, whether to the junior classes or to the universities, will be welcomed across the country. It will be welcomed not only by those people who will receive the benefit of that help, but by every land owner in the whole dominion whether in urban or rural areas. I am not suggesting how much should be given, or in what way, but I do ask the government sincerely not to turn the bill down but to accept the challenge it offers. It asks the government only to consider the subject, and I think that the least the government can do is to accept that challenge on behalf of its young citizens, whom they recognized immediately after the war and have proceeded to forget in peacetime.


Mr. P. C. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to make any extended remarks at this stage. May I first express my sympathy with the resolution. No province in Canada has contributed more to education in proportion to its resources than has Nova Scotia. Nearly one hundred years ago Sir Charles Tupper established free schools there. For a time it was a serious political problem. Many families who had educated their members privately were taxed so that others might become educated. Even to this day we see in families of Nova Scotia political sympathies which originated at that time.
For many years education in Nova Scotia was at a low ebb. I recall that in 1925 school teachers' salaries were as low as $300 a year. They accepted teaching positions only for a short time so that they could get better positions later or until they were married.
Standards in the teaching profession have been greatly improved, and the teachers require higher relative salaries so that they may make teaching their life?s work. In 1925 and thereafter not only were the salaries low but the standards of education were low, and no pension fund was available. Having regard to the limited revenues of Nova Scotia, large contributions have been made to education.
Nova Scotia has taken pride in the educating of its families, but unfortunately for us many who have received the benefits of that education go to other provinces and other countries, at the expense of their native province.
In the early days of confederation Nova Scotia contributed its part toward acquiring the lands in western Canada where certain sections of each township were set aside for educational purposes. However no school benefits came to our provinces.
While teachers' salaries have increased to a considerable extent in recent years, living costs have increased in greater proportion. Because those who enter the teaching profession must spend such a long time securing the required qualifications, if they intend to make teaching their life's work, they are entitled to payment on that basis.
I do not intend to take up more time in a discussion of the motion, but I must state that I am in complete sympathy with the purpose of it. Anything we can do to assist education and our teachers should be done. Many of them are carrying on at great personal sacrifice. Some hon. members have pointed out that members of the teaching profession have felt it their duty to make sacrifices by way of salaries in order that they might continue teaching. Taxation on lands and property for educational purposes
Education
is very high and should not be increased. Help must come from federal sources. I am in sympathy with the purpose of the resolution,


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with keen interest to the discussion on a resolution that comes before the house not for the first time. Without in any way detracting from its high calibre, as one listened to this debate I am sure one could not help thinking that many of the arguments heard before in favour of the resolution have been repeated on this occasion.
If I may say so, I believe most of the speeches have dealt with the subject in such a way as to win wide acceptance in every section of the house. For instance, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdon-nell) made a passionate plea for the adoption of the resolution, if western civilization, as it is called, is to be preserved. Other hon. members have pointed out the low incomes received by teachers. Many have said that because of the near-saturation point in taxation on real estate, which is fundamental in the provision of resources for education in various communities throughout the country,
. municipal governments find difficulty with this problem.
With all of that, and with much more that has been said, I am sure every one of us in the house is in full accord. No one will deny the importance of education, particularly its importance in maintaining the proper functioning of a democratic country or democratic society. No one will deny the importance of education. One recognizes too, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) has said, that the great battle of ideologies that is now on in the world will in the final analysis be won not by arms alone but by the attitude of the peoples of the world towards the validity of those ideologies. There education will play its great role. With all of that I am sure no one need spend much time in insisting that we are in full agreement.
What we have to decide is not whether education is a valuable thing but what is the best way in this federal state of ours to see that we have the best of education and that our citizens, our children, rich and poor alike, are given the best opportunities to enjoy the heritage which comes from a good educational system. That is the problem. Since in my judgment that is the problem before us at the moment, I would invite the house to consider again the terms of the resolution before us, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding

Education
and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
We have to face this resolution in the light not of what we would like it to mean but of what it actually says. It calls for a program which I shall endeavour to show is not within the competence of this parliament. It calls for a program that in no way can be said to be opposed by those who take issue with this motion. We on this side of the house who take that position do so because we regard the adoption of this particular motion at this particular time in this federal state of ours as one that would be calculated to hinder the progress of education and educational opportunity rather than to further it.
Before stating the two main arguments I wish to offer, may I say that we have yet to hear from the Massey commission. I do not know exactly when that report will be brought in, but I imagine the time is not far distant. While I presume that the report will not deal with all the aspects of education envisaged by this particular resolution, I think one may reasonably expect that it will deal with a number of matters that are germane to the resolution under discussion.
That commission has had the opportunity of listening to representations by all sorts of bodies, educationists, provincial authorities, voluntary associations in this field, labour Organizations and the like. The commission carried its sittings into every one of our ten provinces. I submit that before we make hasty judgment it would be well for us to await the recommendations which that commission will make.
It was suggested the other day that one of the reasons I had given last year why we should not consider a similar resolution was that a dominion-provincial conference was to be held, and that since this was a matter that clearly came within the competence of the provincial authorities we should await their views, which presumably might be expressed at that conference. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) took me to task in the speech he made the other day. All I have to say in defence is that when the conference did take place on December 4 no province raised that question. Undoubtedly, if they had desired to do so, they were influenced largely, as we all were, by the seriousness of the international situation and our consequential obligations.	But the
fact is that the provinces themselves did not initiate any discussion or put forward any proposals that would deal with the matter covered by the resolution now before us.

Be that as it may, I want to emphasize as clearly as I can that we do not want to give the impression to teachers and to young men and women who wish to acquire an education but who And it difficult for financial reasons that in opposing this resolution we are not interested in the objectives which undoubtedly the proposer had in mind. Speaking on a similar resolution, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is reported on page 946 of Hansard of October 19, 1949, as follows: Personally I have no doubt that it will be necessary to find some way in which these institutions can continue to be supplied with that which is necessary to them to maintain that high standard in their educational activities.
Although we are in full sympathy with the resolution as regards the objectives which the hon. gentleman has in mind, the words of the Prime Minister indicate that we will have to devise methods. Those methods must be orderly. They must not be so created as to destroy the very purpose which I am sure the hon, gentleman had in mind.'


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister was speaking about the universities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think he was confining himself to that aspect of the problem. He was referring to the Massey commission, but what helps one phase of educational activity certainly helps another. We have to approach this question in an orderly way.
In 1941 the Sirois commission had to deal with this important matter and they went into this very problem. They listened to the representatives of the provincial governments and of other agencies throughout the country who were proposing that because of the reduction in educational expenditures by the provinces owing to the severe depression the federal government should provide some assistance to supplement the general budgetary obligations of the provinces. At page 51 of book II of the recommendations of that commission, these words appear:
It has-even been contended that the dominion is bound to see that there is equal educational opportunity (as far as is practicable) for every Canadian child. We have the deepest sympathy for these views which have been advanced by many of the organizations most closely associated with education in Canada, and we share to the full the regret that, especially in recent years, education has been terribly neglected in many of the poorer parts of the country and that wholly disproportionate sacrifices have been imposed on those who have devoted their lives to this important public service.
That represents, if I may digress for a moment, another argument that has been put forward in favour of the resolution in its present terms. Then the commission goes on: But the representations appear to us to go too far in denying the right of each province to decide

the relative importance of expenditure on education and expenditure on other competing services. It is our hope that provision can be made for the fiscal needs of all provinces, including within those needs provision for the education of the young. Our financial proposals aim at placing every province in a position to discharge its responsibilities for education (on a scale that is within the means of the people of Canada) if it chooses to do so. Once this position is established it seems to us best that education, like every other form of welfare service in a democratic community, should have to fight for its life, and that a generous provision for the education of the children of the nation should depend, not on an arbitrary constitutional provision, but on the persistent conviction of the mass of the people that they must be ready to deny themselves some of the good things of life in order to deal fairly by their children.
Then the report concludes:
Hence we do not think that it would be wise or appropriate for the dominion to make grants to the provinces earmarked for the support of general education.
I am aware that no one must accept the findings of this commission as an infallible declaration on the subject, but at least they do represent a considered view, and one to which we must pay the strictest attention in discussing this important matter. The resolution says nothing about consultation with the provinces. One would have thought that [DOT] before the resolution could reach the stage-
I was going to say of responsibility, but I will not use that word-of wide acceptance in this house, some indication should have been given as to the means by which the provinces were going to be consulted, the means by which their views could be made known and the means by which the views of the municipalities could be expressed, because through their school boards the municipalities have a tremendous stake and a tremendous interest in this problem.
It would be wrong to suggest, in answer to what I have just said, that the federal government should initiate the matter. I am sure anyone who has had responsibility, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) had when he was minister of education in Ontario, will realize the position any federal government would be in if it suggested that this government or this parliament should take a direct interest in matters which under the constitution are specifically reserved for the provinces. And it is important, irritating though it may be to some in the house who would like to see this question finally disposed of, to remember that we are citizens of a federal state, and undoubtedly it is the desire of the people of Canada that this federalism should continue in its present form. I am sure no one in this house would suggest anything else. Well, the implication in the recommendation of the Rowell-Sirois report to
*	Education
which I referred is clearly that if we are going to maintain the federal character of our state we must clearly observe the principles of action that have been envisaged for the preservation of that federalism. Section 93 of the British North America Act is of the greatest interest in trying to decide which side one should take with respect to this resolution. In the principal paragraph section 93 reads:
In and for each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to education, subject and according to the following provisions-
The ensuing provisions have no relation to the subject under discussion. The important thing is that not only have the provinces been given jurisdiction in this matter; the word "exclusively" is used, and some significance must be attached to the inclusion of that word in the section, for it is not widely or generally used throughout most of the other sections of the act. This clearly indicates that the intention was, as in fact we know it still is, that education was and, as we all believe, should be the domain of the provinces. We know the national unity of this country is predicated in very large measure upon the preservation of that constitutional fact; and any interference with it I submit would greatly impede the cause of education instead of furthering it.
During the past year, together with a number of my colleagues of the government, I had the opportunity of attending conferences with the provinces with respect to agreement on constitutional matters, as well as the conference on December 4 on wider terms of reference. Anyone who has followed those proceedings will realize, I think, how sacrosanct, not only in legal fact but in desire, is this competence given the provinces regarded by provincial governments at the present time. For that reason among others we must take issue with and oppose this resolution.
Some may say that we are already assisting education in a specific manner for a specific purpose. That is true, and I propose to deal with that point in some detail. Before doing so, however, let us look at the terms of this resolution again. It does not call upon the federal government to provide moneys to assist for a particular purpose. It calls upon the federal government to provide financial assistance so that we may expand and equalize educational opportunity across Canada. In other words its purposes are general, for general education. No one would argue successfully, I am sure, that you could expand or equalize educational opportunity without going into the whole matter of educational policy; and I submit with great confidence it would be a most serious mistake to argue

Education
that we should pass a resolution which so obviously, on the face of it, is not within our competence. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr, Gillis) said this was an important matter; that it was important that we should expand and equalize educational opportunity, and that right here and now in this house we should amend the constitution if that is a stumbling block. Well, I have great respect for the hon. member, but I am sure that upon reflection he will see how impracticable his suggestion is. He will see the position in which we would be placed, not only as a government but as a parliament, by passing a resolution which would require as an initial step the amendment of the constitution in a particular which the fathers of confederation intended should be reserved exclusively to the provinces and which present provincial governments, at least for the most part, are very jealous in seeing maintained in the division of powers as between the two senior levels of government in Canada.
Having said that, one should not get or give the impression that the federal government is not interested in supplementing educational effort in a way which brings that effort within the purview of section 93 of the British North Amerioa Act. I doubt if hon. members have given sufficient attention to one of the most effective ways, within the constitution, of providing the means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada. We are doing that now in a constitutional way through family allowances. We have put at the disposal of parents, as trustees for over four million children, moneys by which, among other things, the opportunities of education have been more readily granted and secured than at any time in our history. If one really wanted to find a measure that was constitutional, and that did provide the means for expanding and equalizing educational opportunity, one could see it in the Family Allowances Act itself. I am sure the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will agree with me when I say that, as a result of the passage of the family allowances measure, the school attendance record in all of our provinces, not less so than in the province of Ontario, has been strengthened and has reached a peak never exceeded before. This is due simply to the fact that, in so far as the education of children until the age of sixteen is concerned, the parents do not draw family allowances unless the children complete the statutory period at school.
I submit that in calculating what we are doing to assist education in the constitutional way afforded us we have in the family allowances measure the most effective means
rMr. Martin.]
of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity in Canada. But that is by no means the full story of what we are doing here through the federal government to make it possible, for specific purposes coming within the ambit of the constitution, to expand and increase educational opportunity. I have calculated that, in addition to family allowances, the federal government is spending now about $35 million a year in the field of education, apart from educational courses that are connected in some way with the training of the armed forces. In the federal programs nothing has heretofore been done for the purpose of formulating policy or dealing with basic fundamentals of education in any province. We have simply provided grants for specific purposes that conform precisely with the policies already formulated by the provinces in the field of education. Under the decisions of our courts such acts are constitutional for the simple reason they do not seek to intervene in a field over which we have no legislative competence.
We have various measures. I start with one that, perhaps in terms of full effect, is not as great as some other measures, but it is a significant contribution. I refer to the grants we make to nine of the ten provinces, amounting to about $3 million a year, that are extended under the Vocational Training Coordination Act for youth training, apprenticeship training, vocational school assistance and so forth. Hon. members will recall that at the end of the last war a program of assistance to technical schools in Canada was arranged. This program had a ten-year duration. While it has not been carried on since, it has been carried on in another way through the grant that I have just mentioned, and through others to which I shall refer later.
The grants made for youth training under this act include, for instance, student scholarships under federal-provincial agreement. Then, we have an expenditure of around $2 million a year to provide for payment to the provinces for capital expenditures for vocational school buildings and equipment.
Another indirect but important contribution is that made by the federal government arising out of the fiscal agreements that were entered into in 1945, and the fiscal agreement which it is anticipated will be entered into this year. Assuming full agreement with the offer made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) to the provinces last December, the provinces will be given by the federal government over $300 million a year to enable them to supplement their own resources and carry out projects and work which, under the constitution, are given to the provinces.

Now, of the $100 million, for instance, that was offered to the province of Ontario under the agreement proposed by the Minister of Finance in December, undoubtedly a good portion would go to bolster up the exchequer of the department of education of that province. I believe that in a federal state, where you want to preserve the true federal character of that state, one of the best ways for doing this is to let the provinces decide what portion of the moneys under their control shall be spent for a particular purpose. If we want to destroy the character of federalism in this country, and I know that none of us do, all we have to do is to say to the provinces that we are willing to give them so much money, but that money must be spent for a particular purpose, to wit for educational purposes. Out of the $100 million, let us say, in the case to which I have just referred, we would say so much is for education, provided you adopt a certain program in respect of education. How long would the cordial relationship between the two levels of government prevail in Canada if those conditions were attached to the moneys paid, under fiscal agreement or otherwise, by the federal government?
Then one should not forget the grants made, for instance, for schools of social work to which the member for Eglinton referred. He expressed the hope that such a worthy project would find additional support in the estimates this year. One will have to wait and see what happens in that regard, but I may say to him that I am very hopeful there will be an increase in that amount.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That makes it unanimous.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But that is an important contribution made to education by the federal government in the only way we have the legal power to do it, to give this money, in this particular instance to the university for a particular purpose and not for the kind of general purpose, laudable as that general purpose may be, as is envisaged in the resolution we are now discussing.
Under the national health program, projects providing for the training of health personnel will call for the expenditure of more than $2 million during this fiscal year. Hon. members may be interested in knowing that under that program up to this period over three thousand five- hundred individuals have received financial assistance to enable them to obtain training in various fields of health activities. No one will for a moment deny the importance of that contribution, but it is important to recognize that the contribution is being made for a specific purpose by a government that is charged with not being interested in seeing
Education
that there is an expansion and an equalization of educational opportunity in Canada. Thousands of dollars are being spent through grants made directly to the provinces for the purchase of teaching equipment, the purchase of films, the purchase of projectors that are being used in schools; the purchase of all sorts of modern equipment which it is thought brings home more aptly than otherwise, and more efficiently than formerly, the subjects taught in our schools and in our universities. I do not have the exact amount of money that has been provided by the federal government for equipment.
A large part of the funds under the national health grants is going to institutions of higher learning through the federal grants for research. Last year when the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke on this matter, he referred to the importance of research; and I agree fully with what he said. But just think of the tremendous expansion that has taken place in the amount of money which the federal government is now making available to various bodies for research in this country. In the field of medicine alone, the amount of money has increased to more than one million dollars. That covers grants to universities and grants that are made by the national research council for purposes somewhat analogous to the one I have just mentioned. That is assistance to education. It is perhaps not assistance to every boy and girl but it is assistance made to education and in the only way in which the federal government can, constitutionally, give assistance.
Again, under the national health grants program, nearly $300,000 has been committed this year, for instance, to assist Canadian universities in research. This is a project of great significance, in that it involves research workers from every province making a coordinated scientific attack on health problems.
Then there are the funds that we provide for Indian education and grants for residential schools for Indians, which amount to more than $6 million a year. While the outlays on veterans educational training has declined from its post-war peak, in the last fiscal year close to $19 million was expended in the form of allowances, tuition and fees, and supplementary grants for vocational and university training. Large sums of money are being spent on training by the Department of National Defence. While it is true that money is for the training of members of the armed services, nevertheless they are Canadians to whom I am sure would apply

Education
the reference made in the resolution to educational opportunity. One could go on reciting the federal contribution that is being made to the provinces, in a constitutional way, in order to strengthen education in this country.
For the reasons that I have given we cannot support this resolution. No one has better expressed our point of view than has the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself when he spoke in this house on October 19, 1949. His words are to be found at page 946, volume 1 of Hansard, second session, for that year. He said:
I am sure all hon. members have welcomed this opportunity of focusing their attention upon this assertion . . . that there should be across Canada the greatest possible degree of equality of opportunity for the education of our young Canadians, the Canadians of the next generation.
Whether or not the granting of financial assistance by the federal government to the various provinces could be arranged in such a manner as to avoid exercising any direct or indirect control over the field of education, which is essentially within provincial jurisdiction, is a question offering greater possibilities of controversy.
There is no doubt that every one of us, as a Canadian citizen, is vitally concerned with the necessity of there being maintained in this country adequate educational facilities to produce the kind of citizens who may be able to make the best possible use of the bountiful resources with which Providence has blessed our great country. And there can be no doubt that, since the cessation of hostilities, the program devised to provide educational facilities for veterans of war has been of great assistance in the maintenance of the efficiency of our educational institutions. I think many of us feel that, without the assistance it was possible to provide during that period, many of our institutions would have found it very difficult indeed to maintain their activities to the high degree which is so satisfactory to the Canadian public.
Personally I have no doubt that it will be necessary to find some way in which these institutions can continue to be supplied with that which is necessary to them to maintain that high standard in their educational activities.
That statement I am sure represents the feeling of all of us. We all want to see the objectives of this resolution carried out; but those of us with responsibility in government at the moment must take the position: What is the most effective way by which that objective can be achieved? We feel that it can best be achieved in the way that we are doing it now, constitutionally, namely by giving assistance for specific purposes, not in any way in opposition to declared policy of education in any one of our ten provinces. The only other way would be by doing what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) suggested but which, as I said a moment ago, I am sure he would, on further consideration admit was an impractical solution. Therefore in opposing this resolution we would not want anyone in this house or in the country to think that we do

not recognize the need for and the desirability of giving to every child in this country the best possible opportunity for education in accordance with her or his talent. But we believe the way to bring that about is to do it within the terms of the constitution, in that way preserving the cause of federalism as we understand it in Canada and in that way more effectively promoting the cause of education. We believe it is better to do it in that way than by following a suggestion which cannot be accepted because it is a matter wholly within the competence of another legislative authority and alien to our own.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be general agreement with regard to the importance of education and with regard to the desirability of respecting the constitutional basis upon which the educational systems of this country have proceeded for so many years. Having said that, I must say that 1 find it difficult to follow the reasoning of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who has just taken his seat, in connection with some of the points he has put forward. He emphasized the fact that it would be most undesirable that there should be any interference with the constitutional authority of the provinces in the field of education. I have already expressed myself so vigorously on the subject that I certainly would have no thought now of expressing any other opinion. I have been a strong advocate of the exclusive jurisdiction of the [DOT]provinces in the field of education, for historical and other reasons. I can think of nothing that would be so likely to disturb the friendly relationship between the various governments of this country as to seek, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the authority of the provincial governments over a field which, for many obvious reasons, is regarded jealously as their exclusive right and responsibility.
I would point out, however, that ways have been found of assisting in different fields, including the field of education, without in any way interfering with the division of constitutional responsibility. I do not wish to labour the subject because it has been referred to several times, but I do think that the reference that has already been made to the extremely satisfactory co-operation between the dominion and the provincial governments in the education of veterans of the last war is something that might well be remembered by Canadians in the years ahead.
As has been pointed out, more than 130,000 Canadian veterans received education in the higher levels, and without exception that met with the satisfaction and approval of the

veterans themselves as well as the general public. In that instance the dominion government provided the money for the education, and the educational program and the actual administration of the education itself were carried out entirely by the departments of education of the different provinces under a comparatively simple and workable agreement between the Department of Labour and the department of education of each of the provincial governments. That form of education carried on through the war years and afterwards in a very satisfactory way. There are other examples of co-operation of that kind.
The minister who has just spoken is one who has reason to know that these exclusive fields do not always present the constitutional barriers where there is an attempt or where there is a definite plan to assist in a particular way. Having said that, I concede that many of the things he has mentioned, which are being handled by the dominion government, contribute their share to the general opportunity for education in this country from the financial point of view. But I would point out that just as education is the exclusive field of jurisdiction of the provincial governments so is hospitalization, except for marine hospitalization. Nevertheless, no insuperable barrier has been encountered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) in finding a way to assist the hospitals of this country, and hospitalization generally, where it was found that the provincial governments did have some difficulty in that field. I would, point out to those who are interested in the strictly constitutional aspect that section 92, subsection 7, brings under the exclusive power of the provincial legislatures the establishment, maintenance, and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals. We have had evidence of the fact that plans could be made under which assistance could be given in some of these exclusive fields which do not invade the jurisdiction and authority of the provinces.
I would go further. These plans have been carried forward in many instances without any suggestion that directly or indirectly there was interference with the administrative responsibilities of these provincial departments which handle these particular activities. Having said that, I would point out that no matter what measure of assistance there may be to the public through these various contributions, which are being made by the dominion government in the many fields already mentioned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the inescapable fact remains that from one side of this
Education
country to the other university presidents, those responsible for university and college education, as well as representatives of school boards, and municipal authorities are making the emphatic statement that they simply cannot carry on under the situation which exists today, with the mounting costs and with the legitimate demands of professors and teachers for higher pay in the face of the increasing cost of living.
That is the situation with which we are confronted. Whether it is true of every province or not, there can be no doubt about the fact that a number of the provinces are not in a financial position today to meet these added demands. Whether this subject was specifically discussed at the last dominion-provincial conference or not, the fact remains that this is a problem which is very much in the mind of each of the provincial governments. They have no opportunity to forget it. They are being pressed by universities, colleges, technical institutions, school boards, municipal councils and others for further assistance in this field so that they may meet the increasing cost of education in these institutions and in the various communities.
The minister has stated that this would mean the entry of the federal government into the field of education. I for one would argue very strongly against any such invasion. That is one reason why I do not agree that direct grants by the dominion government to universities or other institutions would be an extremely difficult problem, and one which could only create grave difficulties in many instances. Unless there were some department of government here in Ottawa which was in a position to examine the qualifications and standards of each of these institutions the government would hardly be in a position to determine what grants it should or should not make. For that reason I am satisfied that in that case as in other cases it would be well to leave the responsi-oility for education in the hands of the departments of education of the different provinces.
However, I do not read the resolution now before us in the same limited way in which the minister has read it. When I use the expression "same limited way" I do not mean that there is any limitation in his capacity to read it, but rather that he has placed a limitation upon its meaning which I do not see in the actual wording of the resolution. I think that when we read that there should be "financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose" we can take that as meaning that this would be

Education
under some arrangement agreeable to the provinces whereby some measure of equalization would take place; so that those provinces which today are less fortunate from the financial point of view than others would have some measure of equalization, and so that they could extend opportunities in the field of education comparable to those afforded by any other province.
Each province in this country is not equally capable of meeting these responsibilities, from the financial point of view. That is no reflection on any province which finds itself in that position. Because of a smaller percentage of industrial and mercantile activity, the maritime provinces undoubtedly would find it more difficult to meet these responsibilities. Newfoundland, our newest province, also will have great difficulty in bringing up its educational standards, unless it receives some special assistance that will make it possible to equalize opportunities in that province, or to bring them to a point where they will compare favourably with those in the more highly industrialized parts of the country.
Without going into further detail I would go back to the Rowell-Sirois report, to which the minister has referred. The Rowell-Sirois report did suggest that it was not desirable that grants be specifically earmarked; and in doing so it recognized the fact that indirectly the dominion government could exercise influence over education if that were done. This was not considered desirable; it was resisted strongly by most of the provinces at that time, and would be resisted just as strongly today,
But then the Rowell-Sirois report went on to say and to recommend that there should be made available a fund which would be allocated to those provinces with a financial capacity to meet this and other similar obligations which was not as great as the financial capacity of the provinces with greater revenue opportunities. The recommendation for the creation of such a fund was put forward at the dominion-provincial conference in 1945. The term which I believe was used in the Rowell-Sirois recommendation, and also at the conference, was that such a fund should be used for the purpose of making grants in aid to those provinces which needed additional financial resources for these purposes.
It may be that a fund of that kind which, after all, would be made available from the general revenue of the country and which, because of that very fact, would draw more heavily from those provinces with the highest revenues, would meet a situation of this kind. I do not think the resolution now
before us in any way precludes full examination of such a plan, and I have not heard any suggestion made in arguments supporting the resolution that any such plan which would be acceptable to the provinces would not be contemplated by the resolution, which simply asks that those steps be taken which will equalize educational opportunities across Canada.
I do think we should do everything we can to equalize educational opportunity. Democracy is perhaps facing its greatest dangers at this time. Democracy is based upon the principle of equality. There is no single thing which will assure equality to as great an extent as will education. A child with no financial advantages, but who receives the best educational opportunity, can go forth into life with the greatest measure of equality any state can give.
We have in Canada primary, secondary, college, technical and university education, all of which are part of the educational systems of the country. It seems to me the target at which we should aim is to make sure that every child of every race or creed, and from every part of the country, no matter what the financial circumstances of that child's parents may be, shall be able to advance through every stage of our educational system, dependent only upon the ability, the capacity and the initiative of the child concerned. That target, that goal, may be difficult to attain; but it seems to me that is the goal. It seems to me that is the thing toward which we should all be striving.
We do know that when the opportunity was afforded the veterans to take college, technical and university education, many young men and women took that education who never could have taken it if the facilities had not been provided as one of the options offered to them after the last war. I commend the government for what it did in that respect. I am sure no investment was ever better made and no money ever better spent than that which gave to the young men and women education to equalize their opportunity for the years ahead. It did more than anything else could have done.
It seems to me that should be the ideal toward which we should all work. There are distant parts of the country where special arrangements will have to be made. The less developed those areas are, the greater the task will be and the more heavily the cost will fall on those very provinces least capable financially of meeting the extra burden.
It is for that very reason that I would not advocate any uniform system of grants which would provide the same amount for the

children from every province of this country, because I recognize the fact that there are provinces in Canada which have great financial advantages, and that what we need is an equalization which would make it possible in those provinces with more limited financial resources to carry forward education to the very highest level, where children are able to avail themselves of that education.
There is plenty of evidence of the increasing interest in higher education. Different members have spoken, and properly, with some measure of pride and some measure of advocacy, in regard to the universities in which they were interested. We have within a very short distance of the House of Commons one of the new and growing universities, which stands as a demonstration of how rapidly interest in higher education is increasing today. Carleton college, located not far from where we are now, opened its first classes in June of 1942. In its last school year it had an enrolment of 1,570 pupils who received a very advanced type of education in the general line of arts and also in such specialized lines as journalism and business administration, which it seems to me is particularly appropriate in an institution reasonably close to the seat of government. Carleton college is not only demonstrating its own vitality and vigour, which commands the respect not only of this community but of the whole country; it is demonstrating the great interest on the part of young people of this country in that higher education which is made available to them by the new institutions which are opening up in this way.
While I have some personal interest in other institutions and while I respect the antiquity of the universities referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and by the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), as well as by other hon. members who have spoken, I think we should have regard to the new universities which are extending opportunities in areas where those opportunities have not previously been presented.
I should like to refer to another point made by the minister who has spoken. He left the impression that in reaching a decision on this subject the government was waiting for the report of the Massey commission. I must confess that I am wholly unable to see what subject in the terms of reference of the Massey commission has the slightest bearing on this resolution. The Massey commission was given four general terms of reference. One was to inquire into the principles which should guide Canadian policy in radio and television. Another was to make recommendations as to the policy to be followed by agencies of the government, such as the 80709-381
Education
national film board, national gallery, national museum and agencies of that kind. The next was the methods by which relations could be carried on with the United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organizations and similar organizations of that nature. The fourth was the relations of the governmen' of Canada with various national voluntary bodies. It does not seem to me that any of those terms of reference embrace the subject matter of this resolution.
I should like to point out a matter that has been referred to in the earlier discussions. I believe this is a subject of great urgency. Even at this time I urge the government to reconsider its decision simply to vote against this resolution and by doing so to defer any action in regard to this problem which has emerged and which must be dealt with unless education in this country is going to be restricted seriously in many fields. I would ask them to recognize that our primary and secondary school systems, our technical schools, our colleges and our universities are all suffering from the fact that our teachers are not today generally receiving a financial return which is in any way comparable to the education they must possess in the first place and the effort they must put into the important task which is before them.
In saying this I know I am not saying anything with which the minister or any members on the opposite side of the house will disagree. I wish, however, to emphasize the urgency of this problem. Teachers are not just people of another occupation. I hope I shall be pardoned for repeating something I said in this house on an earlier occasion. I believe that next to the ministry itself-I am talking now about the ministry in the churches-there is no higher calling to which men and women may devote their service than the calling which is going to guide the destiny of this country through the moulding of the character of our youth. To an extent that we seem so reluctant to recognize, the whole future of this country, the standard of life of the people iif the days ahead, will depend very largely upon the character and also upon the spirit and the measure of personal confidence which our teachers have in their own future. That will in itself impart something to the children, whether they intend to impart that spirit or not.
I shall refer once again to words of mine which were quoted this afternoon. We can build the most magnificent structures that any nation ever built to house its educational activities, but that will be of little avail unless

Education
the education of the teachers and the spirit in which they carry on their work are such as to develop in the youth of Canada not only higher character but also that confidence which will give to them the vitality and initiative which are so essential in a nation with such challenging opportunities as we possess in Canada today.
I want also to point out, Mr. Speaker, that while we are confronted with heavy costs, which none of us must ignore, there are some aspects of education which can compensate somewhat for the dollars that are spent. I am sure that every dollar spent on providing a really good education will be a dollar saved in our prisons, our reform institutions and the various corrective establishments across this country. Even if you cannot measure it in actual dollar savings in these very costly institutions, we can see the value that will be gained in what might be regarded as the capital investment in skill and character of our people.
Then there is the value of health itself. There is an old Latin maxim, mens sana in corpore sano. A healthy mind may naturally be in a healthy body. Also I think that a healthy mind will contribute greatly to the development of a healthy body. I feel sure that no one will support me more vigorously in that than the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). After all, there is no provision for health which will have more effect than to instil in the minds of our youth a healthy respect for their own bodies, a healthy mental discipline which will guide their course of action, and some acceptance of those standards of life which in themselves will most effectively protect them against many of the infirmities and many of the dangers which all of us must encounter in this complex society of ours.
Now before I conclude my remarks I want to refer to just one other statement that was made this afternoon. I must confess some surprise at the statement by one hon. member that he would be very greatly concerned about a system that wopld pass on additional money to irresponsible local bodies. Our whole educational system right across Canada, in every one of the provinces, is based upon the idea of local authority in intimate contact with the local problems of the people themselves. I believe one of the most disastrous things that could happen would be to try to direct educational activities from some central point, where these human contacts would be broken and it would become something like an industrial production line.
IMr. Drew.]


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a question of privilege,
Mr. Speaker, I did not make the statement attributed to me by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I said "some irresponsible provincial authorities."


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the hon. member has improved the situation very much by his remark. I thought he had said local authorities, but if he says he said provincial authorities I certainly accept that statement. In that case I would express even greater concern, because these are the authorities that guide the educational system of this country, and which the minister has been emphasizing must continue to guide it.
Without enlarging upon this further, Mr. Speaker, I believe we do not need to examine too closely the precise wording of the resolution and ask ourselves whether we would like to change it a little. What is the purpose of this resolution? The purpose is to emphasize the need for an immediate attempt to meet what has already become an urgent situation. The urgency of that situation is being emphasized by municipal authorities, by college authorities, by representatives of universities and by people generally across Canada. I believe our target should be to equalize educational opportunities so that every child may really have a chance to go as far as that child's mental capacity makes possible; and I believe passing this resolution would emphasize our belief that this should be done. The government could then sit down with the provincial authorities and lay plans for an equalization of opportunity which does not exist today.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, since my colleague and I, in common with many other members in this house, have received representations from the various organizations concerning federal government support for education, I feel that I should make a few remarks at this time. We have received messages from three of the most prominent organizations in Newfoundland, the Newfoundland teachers' association, the Newfoundland federation of labour, and the Canadian Legion, Newfoundland command. I have reason to know something of the work of the teachers in Newfoundland, and I believe there is no finer body of men and women in the country. Because of the geography of the country they often have to undergo severe hardships and make great sacrifices in carrying on their profession for

a small remuneration. It has often been said that the salaries received by teachers do not compare with those received by people in the lowest class of labour.
This afternoon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) delivered an interesting speech in which he summarized all the arguments that were used, and stated that most members in the house were in agreement that education was the sort of thing they could all support. He expressed the view that the government was sympathetic with the idea which the sponsor of this resolution has brought forward. Then he laid down two grounds of objection: first, that it was not within the competence of the federal government to give assistance; second, that it was calculated to hinder rather than to help education. He gave no arguments that I can recall to support this latter ground, but he did argue that it was not within the competence of the federal government to give this assistance to education.
He stated first of all that during the recent dominion-provincial conference in December, no province ventured to raise the question of support for education. I believe I am quoting him correctly when I say that. At the time I had in front of me the proceedings of the conference, so I looked up the index and found that the premier of Manitoba had made several remarks on the subject, and had suggested methods by which the federal government could give assistance to such worthy objects as education. The premier wound up his remarks with a list of seven principal points which he considered essential to the discussion, and the seventh one was this:
Recognition that the national interest in education, both because of its nature and its cost, has reached the point that substantial contributions from the federal treasury are required and justified to provide an adequate standard of education throughout the country.
Probably the minister had forgotten that the premier of Manitoba had made education an issue at that time. I believe that the premier of the newest province also felt that was the sort of subject which those attending the conference should be considering when they met. The minister then analysed the resolution in a sort of academic way. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that all these resolutions should be construed in a broad way. They lay down a general principle. For example, in this case, the principle is that it is a desirable thing, in the opinion of this house, that assistance should be given by the federal government to such a worthy object as education. He stated that the provinces and the municipalities had not been mentioned specifically in the resolution. It seems to me it should not be necessary to do that.
Education
Undoubtedly it was intended toy the mover of the resolution that the aid go to the provinces as the repository of the responsibility for education.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The provinces are mentioned in the resolution.


William Joseph Browne: The minister said that they were not mentioned. Then, Mr. Speaker, he read from section 93 of the British North America Act to show that the provinces had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of education. Following that, he proceeded to show us that they did not have the exclusive jurisdiction in the proper meaning of the word "exclusive", which means to which there is no exception. The minister showed that the federal government, during this fiscal year, was spending as high as $35 million directly for aid to education, in addition to the vast amount of money that has been spent for many years in family allowances which undoubtedly do contribute almost directly to the promotion of education.
It is a prerequisite that the children of families receiving the allowance shall go to school. There are many cases of families who do not receive the allowance because their children are not attending school. The minister deserves a great deal of credit for the interest he has shown in the promotion of family allowances. I believe he has given us a great example of one method by which the federal government has given tremendous assistance to education. He then cited a number of instances in which the federal government had aided education, but he did not mention them all. He did refer to the help given universities; the help given health personnel in attaining higher qualifications; the help in research and medicine; the work done for veterans, and so on. He could have referred to the assistance given in the fisheries department and the Department of Agriculture, and the educational documents pouring out in such a stream from his own department, which some people are unkind enough to call propaganda.
The minister referred to the assistance given in youth training and physical fitness. Let me call to the attention of the house the one serious phase of education in this country in which I believe the federal government is taking considerable interest, and in which the minister has shown considerable interest. I refer to the question of medical education. I believe the minister recently made a speech in which he stated that there are only 116 more practising dentists in Canada today than there were five years ago. I believe the minister will acknowledge he made that statement. If that is so, what does



S90 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Education
it mean? It means this, that the universities have not the facilities to cater to those who are looking for a dental education. I am only surmising that. But I do know this with regard to medical education. I believe that at the university of Ottawa this year there were over 300 applicants for entry into second year medicine and there were only six vacancies. The registrar wrote to the 360 applicants-I believe that was the number-saying that they were sorry but they could not accept them as they had only six vacancies but that, if they liked, they could apply for first year medicine. As a result, all the 360 applied for first year medicine, but they could not get in there. Some of them have gone into other studies when they could not get into medicine; some of them are working in laboratories. If it is true that in one university, in one city of this vast country, there was such a large number of applicants turned down, how many people are there across the country who are interested in obtaining a university education in such a valuable profession as medicine, but are unable to obtain the qualifications they require and are unable to obtain that training which would make them so beneficial to the country as a whole?
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that someone must take charge of the situation. If the federal government, which has such vast revenues at its disposal and has such a variety of means of obtaining funds, is not going to take a greater interest in the promotion of higher education in fields such as medicine and dentistry, then who is able to do it? The example I gave referred only to the city of Ottawa. As I say, right across the country there must be thousands who have been prevented from obtaining higher education in those fields and perhaps in other useful fields as well.
It seems to me that the work which was done in connection with veterans affairs has been so useful that it provides a good example of what the government can do in promoting education through vocational training. I know that in our province we have great need of vocational training. We have need of special training for our fishermen and special training in agriculture. I should like to see some vocational schools set up. Unless the province gets assistance from the federal government, however, I feel confident that it will not be able to carry on the work being done at the present time, let alone embark on any of these ventures that are so laudable and so desirable. It therefore seems to me that the minister, who is so familiar with these deficiencies in our university education, is in a position to recommend to the government
[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).!
that assistance of the kind that we have had in the past for so many things that he has mentioned be carried on..
He stressed the constitutional question. Criticizing the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), he said that we could do it either constitutionally or the way that the hon. member suggested, which would be unconstitutional. I hold no brief for the hon. member for Cape Breton South. But after all, as the minister said, who wants to do it otherwise than constitutionally? I point to the statement made by the premier of Manitoba and I suggest to the minister that it represents the feeling of most of the premiers of the provinces of Canada. They feel that the federal government must come to the assistance of the provinces if education is to receive the assistance that this resolution envisages.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, it seems that miracles will never cease. I witnessed two this afternoon. The first was that my whip suggested that I should be brief.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That applause is for me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The second was hearing the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), a representative of miners and workers, oppose this resolution which is aimed at giving greater opportunities to the children of miners and workers in Canada; then in contrast with that, hearing the eloquent appeal in support of this resolution made by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew). Truly, Mr. Speaker, the educational policies of the Conservative party have changed a great deal throughout the years. I remember reading, when I was a boy, about a great and noble Conservative lord in Great Britain who had painted many great brush strokes on the canvas of British history. Speaking on education, this is what he had to say: My noble lords, as a Conservative, after having spent fifty years in the service of my country and having witnessed during that fifty years the great and popular demand for wider education, I have come to the conclusion that the only results that have been obtained are that the vulgar writings on toilet walls are about twelve inches lower. That, Mr. Speaker, shows the progress that has been made in less than fifty years in the thinking of all parties with respect to the necessity for a broad base for education.
I want to congratulate the hem. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) on his speech this afternoon. I am going to be brief. I

must say that when he dealt with the purpose of education I heartily agreed with a great deal he had ito say. I congratulate the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) on the sturdy stand he has taken. Regardless of our political differences, he always indicates to this house that he is close to the thinking of his constituents; and he represents a farming community.
Before proceeding to make my brief observations on this resolution I want to deal for a minute or two with the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Kootenay East, because I, who happen to be the member for Kootenay West, must do something to redeem the reputation of that part of British Columbia. If I heard him correctly, he implied that this resolution and previous ones of this type were more or less the result of a campaign on the part of groups of teachers whose ulterior motive was aotually that of obtaining higher salaries. Surely, Mr. Speaker, he must know that the purpose of this resolution has been endorsed throughout the years by labour organizations, farmers' organizations, by veterans' organizations and by some of the highest educationists in this country. I am sure it was purely through lack of knowledge that he made that unconsidered remark. The hon. member for Kootenay East completely missed the intent of this resolution. He did not realize that it is not aimed at interfering in any way with the constitution as it now stands or at interfering with the rights of he provinces to control and administer education. It is simply aimed at expanding and equalizing the opportunity for education in this country so that the children of the nation, many of whose parents he represents, will have opportunities that have been denied to them in the past.
The member suggested that the implementation of this resolution would demand the establishment of a ministry of education in the federal parliament. No one has suggested anything of that sort. All that is suggested by this resolution is that the government give consideration to making grants in aid to the provinces for the purpose of education, not only as the result of arguments put forward by members of this house but as a result of the difficulties the provinces find themselves in and of the widespread demand for consideration of some action in this direction. This afternoon I listened with a great deal of interest to the tortuous and honeyed eloquence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I always listen with interest. He based his opposition mainly on two grounds. The familiar ground of the constitutional argument was one which I think was very well
Education
answered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), and the hon. member who has just preceded me.
We have family allowances, old age pensions, and a great deal of legislation that has been given effect in exactly the same way as the content of this resolution would be given effect. The use of the constitutional argument, as a matter of fact, is becoming rather obsolete when dealing with a question of this kind.
The second argument was the present international situation. A resolution similar to this one was presented in this house in 1946, in 1947, in 1948 and in 1949, before we had the present tense international situation. At that time the minister and his associates refused to take action as was suggested. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that we all realize the very tense and serious international situation, but that is not a valid excuse.
Almost immediately after declaration of the second world war the government of Great Britain greatly expanded its vote in the House of Commons for educational service in that country. The only other serious opposition that we have had, shall I say, to what could be termed the harmonious symphony in support of this resolution, came from the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I can say, Mr. Speaker, knowing his outlook on life, we could expect that, but I did not expect it from the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne). The hon. member for Temiscouata sang his usual medieval folk song. I support this resolution the purpose of which is to expand and equalize educational opportunities in this country, because I believe it is a necessary thing at this time.
Occasionally strong characters rise above circumstances. There are few who have not required the assistance implied in this resolution. For instance, we have the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who, I am told, rose from a miner 6,000 feet under the sea to the top of parliament hill. We have other hon. members in the house who have, shall I say, been wafted here on the winds of Liberal oratory, but those are few in relation to the total need.
The intention of this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is to assist the average boy and girl in this country, regardless of residence. The argument in support of it was well developed by the hon. member who introduced it, namely, my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight). He presented his argument in excellent style and in his usual enjoyable dulcet tones, and there is no need to repeat that. Other hon. members have

Education
also presented excellent arguments, not only on this occasion but on previous occasions, in support of this proposal. Outside the house there is widespread support for the purpose of this resolution. So far as I can find out, Mr. Speaker, the first collective effort to organize public opinion in this matter was taken by the Canadian teachers' federation in the presentation of a brief in 1941.
Since 1945, as I said previously, we have had resolutions presented to the house by hon. members in this group and supported by hon. members of other groups along the same lines. When these resolutions were first introduced in 1946 and in 1947 there was no widespread support in the house for them, but the support has been increasing from year to year until it is very widespread in the house and in the country, so widespread, Mr. Speaker, that I rather suspect the government will not permit it to come to a vote tonight. I see an hon. member sitting opposite who I think intends to speak at length if the occasion requires it.
Why is that support increasing? It is increasing because conditions are changing. The present income tax arrangement with the provinces, and the present heavy income taxes which are required, are lessening the ability of the people to meet the costs of education from sources that have served in the past. I have had some experience with school boards, and was on a school board for a good many years. I know local administration, as do many other hon. members. I can speak only from my experience as a resident of British Columbia. I do know that in British Columbia two of our major problems at the present time are the cost of building hospitals and the cost of educational services.
As far as the provinces are concerned, the present bases of taxation for educational purposes are most unfair. They are placed largely upon land and property. That was all very well in the past but it is not equitable today under these circumstances. Why? In the first place, I say it is unfair because capital in bonds, securities, or cash is not taxed for school purposes. If I have $20,000 in bonds, or $20,000 in securities or $20,000 in wealth in that form, it is not taxed for educational or school purposes. If I have a $20,000 farm my capital is taxed every year, and I fully appreciate that fact, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that the provinces have to set their own houses in order and approach the federal government. This question can only be solved as a result of a study of the whole situation in a co-operative manner by the federal and provincial governments.

I believe the provincial governments have to find a more equitable basis of taxation. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should have taxes in the provinces on a provincial basis rather than on a regional basis. On the present basis land and property are taxed for educational purposes within the school districts, so that the school districts' rates vary from district to district.
A great deal of wealth escapes taxation in that way. In British Columbia you will find certain school districts that do not require a great deal of taxes. Within those districts you may find a huge power plant worth many millions of dollars; but because of the limited revenue required to operate the schools in that district a very low rate of taxation is set for those industries that happen to be within that school disrict; whereas in larger school districts with a large population, shall I say, a farming school district, with no great industries situated therein, they have a heavy rate of taxation because of the heavy cost of education in relation to the total assets in the districts. Therefore I suggest that taxation for education in the provinces should be on a provincial basis. In that way we would have an established rate of taxation for the province as a whole on land and property which would be fair and just.
To illustrate my point, that the provinces, shall I say, are not tackling the matter as they could, I was talking with a very wealthy American lumberman from Minneapolis a year or so ago who happens to own large holdings in my constituency from which tremendous profits are made every year, and have been for many years. But the holdings are out of any school district. The operations are not contained in a school district. I said to him:	"Why should I, as a farmer, and all
my friends around here who have, as pioneers, built the roads, provided the facilities in the district, schools, hospital, and all the other services, have to carry this burden of taxation while your vast holdings outside the school district are allowed to escape without taxation?" He said to me, "Well, more fools you".
I believe that in the first instance there has to be a great revision of the basis of taxation in the provinces, because land and property cannot continue to carry the load on the present basis. If we have an over-all provincial tax for education, which would be considerably lower because of the bringing of tremendous assets into the taxation picture for school purposes, and then if we have some grants in aid where required from the federal government,
I believe we will be beginning to establish the financing of our educational service in this country on a sound financial basis so as to

render justice to every boy and girl in the country, wherever he or she may reside.
Therefore I heartily support the resolution. Those boys and girls for whom the legislation is required cannot speak for themselves. We are here in the house to do that for them. In supporting the resolution I believe I am speaking for the boys and girls in Canada who expect the House of Commons to do something to expand and to equalize educational opportunity in this country.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, several times during the fifteen years I have had the privilege of representing my constituency in this house I have spoken in support of the idea of federal assistance for education, realizing that the provinces generally have responsibility for heavy services which, in most cases, because of limited sources of revenue at their disposal, they are quite unable to discharge.
I have always supported a resolution of this kind when it has come before the house, and the same can be said for every member of the Social Credit group. Judging from the discussion which has thus far gone on, it would appear to be generally agreed in the house among all parties that federal assistance for education is urgently needed, manifestly fair and financially practicable. I believe only one member has suggested that the federal government might not be able to afford the money with which to discharge the responsibility of educational costs in Canada.
I endorse all that has been said by those who thus far have supported the resolution. The debate has been commendable, on a high plane and in every way advantageous.
I should like to give a certain amount of attention to the minister's observations. He raised the constitutional objection. May I put before him and the house three simple suggestions. Supposing now the federal government were to allow the Bank of Canada to be used as a source of low interest loans for long periods for the construction of buildings, and for the purchase of buses and vans for the conveyance of boys and girls: in those circumstances is there anyone in the house, no matter how skilful he may be in respect of the constitution, who can show any constitutional objection to that procedure?
If the use of the Bank of Canada were to be permitted through the provincial governments, with the consent and agreement of the federal government, I think I can safely challenge anyone to show that that would be unconstitutional, or would be in any way derogatory to the absolute provincial sovereignty every person demands.
If this were done, one of the major sources of financial hardship which at present afflicts
Education
the provinces would to a large extent be eliminated. All the districts where I live are almost at their wits' end to know how to finance enough suitable buildings with suitable equipment to provide the education boys and girls require in these days, particularly in the matter of shop work, domestic science, household arts, agricultural skills and the many other things which progressively-minded people realize ought to be in the schools today.
It is not so bad in the larger cities, where students can be taken from one school to another. However, I would ask hon. members to visualize the ordinary rural area endeavouring to build and maintain a school building equipped to provide all the various kinds of education I have indicated, and then to ask themselves whether they feel it would be possible for such an area to finance the construction of such a school.


Mr. Prudham:: Why does not the Alberta government help them?


John Horne Blackmore: The Alberta government does help them.
But we are not discussing the question of Alberta; I think probably what Alberta is doing in the matter of assisting in the construction of schools will compare favourably with what any province in Canada is doing and far surpass what most of them are doing. However, at the moment we are not discussing that.
I have made one suggestion, and I ask whether or not that sort of procedure would be unconstitutional. I say it certainly would not. School districts would be able to obtain money over long periods of time, possibly fifty years, at an interest rate of not more than two per cent-because the Bank of Canada could easily finance a loan of that sort at the two per cent rate.
May I suggest another device. Supposing the dominion government were to say to the provinces, "We will grant you money to cover the maintenance of your schools, janitorial services, repairs, and amounts required to cover the cost of driving the vans, which are coming into use more and more with the introduction of the larger school units, especially in the rural areas": I ask whether a plan of that sort would be unconstitutional. It would be impossible to interpret that as being unconstitutional. If the whole thing were done through departments of education in the provinces concerned, once again the sovereignty of the province would be completely safeguarded.
May I direct the attention of the house to a further proposal. It is well known that the

Education
federal government has been trying for a considerable number of years to get away from the provinces the lucrative taxation fields of corporation taxes, succession duties and personal income tax. The first very definite move in that direction was the appointment of the Rowell-Sirois commission no doubt with explicit instructions from the then prime minister, or someone else, that they were to find as they found. The report of the Rowell-Sirois commission was that these three fields of revenue should be surrendered by the provinces to the federal government. Suppose the dominion were to say, "We now have considerable revenue from these fields which the provinces are now leasing to the federal government and we will remit to the provinces a certain percentage of the money we derive from those fields": I wonder if the minister can find any evidence in the constitution to indicate that the federal government has no constitutional right to remit to a province a portion of the revenues collected from that province. If he can he will enlighten me on the constitution and I believe I know something about it already.
Suppose the dominion were to say, "We will remit a certain portion of this revenue derived under these three main heads so you may use it if you choose in defraying part of the cost of teaching in and administering your schools." It looks to me as though a procedure of that sort would safely sidestep the constitution even if it were interpreted by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).
Just a word concerning the excessive costs to which I have alluded already and which are rapidly increasing. I refer to the cost of constructing school buildings and educational institutions which the people across Canada feel they ought to have and are demanding that they have. I refer to the expenses of building gymnasiums and all that kind of thing. You do not need to go very far from this building to find an example of the magnificent structures which the Ottawa people in their wisdom are providing for their youth. They are literally temples of learning and yet not a bit better than they ought to be. If the people of Ottawa can enjoy such institutions I know that they would be the first ones to say that the people in the remotest areas of Canada ought to be privileged to enjoy similar blessings.
This gives us a reason for the urgency in the federal government providing adequate assistance to the provinces in the matter of education.
I believe everyone who was in the house was delighted with the superb flight of

expression in which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) indulged just before six o'clock. He expressed a noble idea, but the money which would be required to attain the objectives which he portrayed so beautifully would be quite an impressive amount. The question will be asked: where will the money come from?
I am not going to deal with that aspect of the matter just at the present time, but I should like to point out something with which I think every hon. member will agree. Canada's ability to provide schools and other facilities depends upon Canada's ability to produce coal, wheat, and all the other things that Canada can produce. Those are the things which manifest the wealth of the nation. Is there anyone who will question that Canada can produce enough wheat, coal and every other kind of Canadian commodity to enable her to support educational institutions of the standard we all have in mind and which the leader of the opposition so eloquently suggested? I do not think anyone will say that we cannot.
Not only can we do that, but we can fight a war in our stride and at the same time give our people a high standard of living. If you judge of our financial ability by our physical ability to produce real wealth, which is goods and services, then all of our attempts to approach these problems of finance will be based upon our physical capacity to produce the goods and services which are the basis of our wealth and which should be the basis of our financial ability. What is physically possible should be financially possible.
If hon. members do not know how to bring such a happy condition to pass, that our physical possibility should become our financial possibility, let them devote themselves scrupulously to the problem of how that might be done. As every hon. member knows, and as a good many people in the country know, Canada's production potential has been indicated as $17 billion this year. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) ventured the suggestion that we might reach $20 billion in the year to come. We have just got nicely into our stride in the producing of goods. While many say we have reached our capacity, I do not think that is so. With a production of $20 billion worth of goods a year we would have ample financial capacity to provide desired things like educational institutions and educational systems.
Because of the reasons I have set forth, I am going to support the resolution and every member of the Social Credit group will do likewise.


Mr. W. F. Carroll (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say on this resolution, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration means of expanding and equalizing educational opportunity across Canada, by the granting of financial assistance to the various provinces for that purpose.
It will be seen that the object of the resolution is to equalize educational opportunity in this country of ours. I think that the people of this country who want to send their children to school have an equal opportunity in, every province of Canada. As far as I recollect, the mover of the resolution has been the only one who has made a specific recommendation, and I quote from page 461 of Hansard of February 19, 1951:
I would say that the two greatest needs are money for the payment of teachers, and money for the erection of buildings for educational purposes.
The hon member kept clear of assistance to universities and his reason was that that question is under advisement and consideration at the present time by a commission of this country. So far as those two objectives are concerned, I should like to point out that stone walls do not a prison make nor iron bars a cage. No more do magnificent buildings in the shape of school structures or a great array of teachers provide the things that make for equality of educational opportunity in this country.
I want to give credit to our province and its present government for having given first place to education. I believe the mover of the resolution made some mention of the salaries being paid in Nova Scotia. Well, I think the teachers in my province, according to their qualifications, their experience and their grades, are more or less on an equality with the civil servants in Canada, certainly with those in Nova Scotia. Since the provincial pension fund was put on a better footing the province has been contributing $300,000 for that purpose. So, while I believe the teachers of Nova Scotia are not getting sufficient, like the civil servants in Ottawa, conditions have improved.
As to the equalization of opportunity, a great deal has been done in that connection also, particularly in the industrial areas where the unions have had something to do with it. Years ago I lived in industrial centres in my province where the fathers and mothers of families did not have incomes sufficient to enable them to send their children to school. They were not able to clothe or feed them properly. Many years ago I had occasion to look into the situation in two industrial towns in the eastern part of Nova Scotia, and the children were not going to school for the
Education
reasons I have mentioned. I cannot give to the unions all the credit for the improvement, but they did help bring about conditions under which people have been at least able to provide their children with sufficient food and clothing so they may go to school; and of course our industries co-operated with the unions toward that end. The same conditions existed in our fishing ports in the dark days; the people did not have sufficient income to send their children to school regularly. That was why, years ago, the children of Nova Scotia did not have an equal opportunity.
I am very proud of the educational system of my province. This evening I was glad to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) make reference to Carleton college, that fine institution which has been developed in Ottawa. I would point out to the house that the first president of that college was born, bred and educated in Nova Scotia. He contributed a great deal toward raising the necessary funds to organize that institution. The present president of Carleton college is also a Nova Scotian and, better still, from Cape Breton. These men were not subsidized in getting their education. They received no bonuses from the local government or the dominion government. It took them a long time to get through their university courses, but they were the better men for it.	.
I have a fairly close association with three of Nova Scotia's universities. For some years I was a governor of Dalhousie university, the principal university in my province, where the professions are taught. It has the greatest law school in Canada; I cannot say much about the medical school, because I do not know enough about it. I am also a governor of St. Francis Xavier university, which has been doing wonderful work in Nova Scotia. They were not satisfied to just sit back and take in the young men and women who could afford to attend that college. They instituted a system of adult education, under which they sent field men throughout the province, as well as into New Brunswick, giving instruction to the people. They brought in older men who in their earlier days did not have much education; they gave them a course in adult education, and sent them throughout the province; and that work is still going on. I am also on the senate of St. Mary's university, which is doing good work in the city of Halifax. All these universities, of course, are financially embarrassed; they are all looking for money. For the reasons given by the hon. member who introduced this resolution, however, I am not saying anything about assistance to those three universities. We also have Ste. Anne's university down at Church

Education
Point, which is doing marvellous work and which over the years has turned out some of the most brilliant men we have produced in Nova Scotia.
I am not saying these things to praise Nova Scotia, but because I have always been proud of the educational facilities there. I have had a good deal of experience in these matters, and I do not think there was ever a man or woman in that province who set out to get a higher education, in the professions or otherwise, who was unable to accomplish that purpose. They have gone out and earned money for themselves. I can take my own case. I was a long time getting through law school. I was thirty years of age before I graduated from Dalhousie university. I did not have any money. In my undergraduate days I did manual labour for three years in order to help myself through. Speaking of school teachers, I was one; a very poor one, I am told. I taught school for two years, and I would be ashamed to tell this house what my salary was. Nevertheless I made enough to take another year at law school, and was able to dress fairly well in addition. When I got through university I had a bachelor of arts degree and went to teach school. I had every grade from 1 to 11. I taught them Latin and French. I stayed with them after school hours. I had a first class licence. My B.A. did not amount to anything in those days; and as a matter of fact, as far as practicability is concerned, it does not amount to much today. I was paid $150 by the section and $120 by the province for my first class licence. That was my salary, $270, and I did such a good job that they offered me an increase of $25 the next year. I wanted to go to law school, and I figured out that I would probably succeed in getting through my law course when I was about thirty-eight years old. I was twenty-two at the time.
So, Mr. Speaker, in every province of this country there is opportunity for higher education if the young people want to grasp it, if they have the courage and perseverance and the will to get along in the world. As I said, I never saw a man in Nova Scotia who wanted to become a lawyer, a doctor, a clergyman or anything else, who did not succeed whether or not he had money.


William Joseph Browne: A lot of them are trying to be doctors now, but they cannot get into Dalhousie medical school.


William F. Carroll: What is your question, sir?


William Joseph Browne: I was saying that many people are trying to get into the medical school at Dalhousie who cannot get into it.


William F. Carroll: That is not the fault of the young man who is trying to get in.


William Joseph Browne: Oh, no.


William F. Carroll: I know something about that. After the war preference was given to the veterans, and I think properly so. If we want to do something to give ecual opportunity for education across this coun.ry we have to start at the bottom, as the minister told us. I had it in my notes before he started his speech, but the greatest impetus that was ever given to education in my own province was the family allowance. This enabled the mothers and fathers across the country to give a fair amount of clothing and proper nutrition to their children so that the children could go to school. The immensity of this family allowance is something that is perhaps not well understood. I shall tell you my idea of the reason for inaugurating family allowance. John Jones and I work in an industry. We get the same pay. I have one child and Jones has five or six. With my one child I am just able to get along in some sort of decency. How is my friend going to get along who has four or five children? I think that is the philosophy behind these family allowances.
Another thing that has done a great deal for the province of Nova Scotia in the matter of education-I can only speak about my own province-is the government's action with regard to health. Throughout the years hundreds of children across this country have been unable to go to school because of bad eyes, bad tonsils or bad throats. This government-I am not saying "this government" because it happens to adhere to the same political principles I have, because any government would have done the same thing -has contributed to health matters throughout this country. Not only that, but four or five years ago some of the universities in the maritimes started a course for social workers. This government came to the assistance of that program. How does a social worker fit into the educational program? A social worker goes around under the aegis of the province of Nova Scotia, assisted by money from this government, not for the purpose of detecting crime, not for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the woman of the house is looking after the little money she gets from the family allowance, but to investigate the health and economic conditions under which that family is living. These workers report to headquarters, with the result that the health of these people is improved. In addition to that, there are nurses going throughout the province. Now, all these things give the people a greater opportunity of securing an education.
So far as I am concerned, I would be glad to see this government give all the money

it could possibly give to the various provinces for the purpose of assisting education. It would not be very much out of my pocket, one way or the other. This resolution was on the order paper last year, and has been on the order paper for some time. I received no message from the authorities in the province of Nova Scotia requesting me to support this resolution. I do not know if many members in this house have received encouragement from their provincial governments to give it their support. Perhaps some have. There was a good reason for that, and I think the reason was explained by the minister. I believe that before any assistance could be given to the provinces, especially along the smaller scale I am talking about, there has to be an agreement between the provinces and the dominion government. Other matters have been worked out that way in the past, and I see no good reason for adopting a different course today. Unless there was such an agreement, no results could be achieved.
At the moment I am not taking the constitutional question into account. I know nothing about constitutional law because I did not study it very much. A knowledge of constitutional law is not of much assistance to a man in a country practice. The less he knows about it, the better practice he will get. I am not putting that forward as a bar at all, but there are ways and means of entering into an agreement with the provinces from which there will be no aftermath of disagreement. Good results can be achieved if the provinces co-operate with the dominion. So far as helping out the universities is concerned, all I am going to say is that I think it is in good hands at the moment if I am correctly informed. So far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, the universities are doing splendid work and they are all in need of substantial financial assistance.
There were other things that this government, and other governments, have done concerning health matters in the various provinces which have enabled the children to go to school. There have been things done by this government and other governments in the way of family allowances. In the province of Nova Scotia we have a widows' allowance, which is something apart from this government altogether. All these are the best things that could have been done by this and other governments to equalize the opportunity for education in this country..I really did not intend, Mr. Speaker, to take up so much time tonight. I thought in justice to my own province that I should say something to indicate that, after all, we are not in the wilderness down there. I want to say that
Education
there is no province in the whole country that has sent abroad to the various provinces of Canada, and the border states, as great a number of well educated professional men, that is, proportionate to population, as the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up very much time tonight. It was not my intention to speak on this resolution, but I received several telegrams from various associations in my province stating that they would like to have someone speak for the province of Prince Edward Island. I believe in that old saying that silence is golden, but I also believe that it pays a politician to keep talking.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the sponsor of this resolution. He has endeared himself to the teachers of my province more than any other man. I might say that if he were running on the Conservative ticket in an election down there, he would secure the vote of every schoolteacher in the district. I am sure also that he is receiving the highest congratulations possible from many of the teachers in my own constituency. One remarkable thing in connection with this discussion is the number of men who have spoken here and who still hold to the profession of public schoolteacher. Many of those who have spoken have had years of experience in teaching. Two of those who spoke, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), said they had a particular reason for speaking on this resolution in that they had married schoolteachers. That was a good reason. I went a step further and married one of my pupils; and over the years I found out what an excellent schoolteacher I was. I therefore think I have a right to say something tonight with reference to this subject. As I said, however, I shall be brief.
Our province has nothing to boast about with regard to the salaries paid to public schoolteachers. In fact, I have heard it stated by various speakers that the schoolteachers of our province are paid the lowest rate of salary that is paid in any province in Canada. I regret this situation, but it is owing to the fact that our province, financially, is not in a position to pay that extra amount that our teachers should be getting.
The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll) told about the conditions when he entered the teaching profession. I might say that some twenty, thirty, forty or fifty years ago, or thereabouts, when I took on this noble work, I had the wonderful salary of $225 paid by our provincial government. However, I continued in the work for a couple of years and then retired from it,

Education
having reached the maximum for rural schoolteachers, which was $650. That, however, was before the dawn of this century. Things have now changed. Our teachers are of course now getting a higher salary; but it is not commensurate with the work they are performing. I was pleased to hear the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) today speak about schoolteachers and their work. He placed them next to the clergymen of our country. He said that, next to clergymen, they were doing the greatest work for civilization that was being done by any class of people.
I want to say this with regard to our teachers. While they are not as highly paid as are teachers in other provinces, there is not an institution of any standing from the Atlantic to the Pacific in which you will not find Prince Edward Island schoolteachers teaching and spreading the knowledge they possess among the pupils under them. The same statement holds true to a lesser extent with regard to the United States. Five of the largest institutions of learning in the United States up to a few years ago were headed by Prince Edward Island teachers. To you, Mr. Speaker, and to this house I say that if we were able to pay a sufficiently high salary to keep those high-class teachers in our own province, our educational system would be still better.
I do not want to say anything about the schools and their curricula, because the province can take care of the buildings and the curricula. Our great problem is with regard to the payment of teachers, so that people can go into teaching and make a life profession of it.
I am not going to take up the time of the house further except to say this. I want heartily to support this motion, as I am sure all will who consider it in the light in which it should be considered, namely that the teachers today, especially in some of the provinces, are not receiving a living allowance. I think we should all vote for the resolution and see what the government can do to further the interests of education on an even basis throughout Canada.


Mr.  A. J. Baler@The Balllefords: 
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I had to take the responsibility for starting this debate and I thought I might say a few words in bringing it to an end.' I am now assured that there will be a vote taken on this matter. That is a matter of delight to me after the attempts that I have made in this house in previous sessions to bring about just such a consummation.
I should like to say a word or two about one or two of the speeches that have been made here today. The principal speech offered on behalf of the government by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was, in my opinion, adequately answered by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). I shall leave that one alone.
I should like to say that I enjoyed the autobiography of the hon. member for Inver-ness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll). I congratulate him upon having reached his high eminence from what he described as a humble start. There are many people in this country, though, of his age, who have not, may I say, reached that particular scale of eminence. The hon. gentleman came out with the flat statement that there was equality of opportunity in the matter of education for the children in this country. While I have learnt from experience that it is not safe to speak anything derogatory of any part of the maritime provinces without being publicly rebuked for it, I want to assure him before I say anything that what I have now to say has no such intention. I am interested of course in the maritime provinces as I am interested in my own province; but as to the actual equality of opportunity in the province of Nova Scotia I am sorry that I shall have to quote my own speech. At the moment I have no better authority because I have sat pretty conscientiously at my desk here all day today. Quoting from my own speech of
Education
October 19, 1949, at page 932 of Hansard, I find this statement:
In 1943 the average salary of city teachers in Canada was $1,784, while that of rural teachers was $852.
The house will excuse me, of course, for this rather spotty quotation. I am just jumping from place to place in my speech to quote the parts that I think are germane to the question. I continue:
Dr. Argue's report shows that while one province was spending $31 per child for educational purposes, another was spending $83.
Skipping again a little bit:
Let me prove that statement by pointing out that in 1945 there were 4,550 people teaching-and I do not call them teachers, because they did not hold teaching qualifications.
My hon. friend says that there is equality of opportunity in education all across Canada. These were people who were teaching not on a certificate, but on what they called a permit. Another quotation from the same speech further down:
One learns from the census that 668.000 people in Canada over five years of age are totally illiterate.
I presume that is the last decennial census.
I should like the hon. gentleman to notice this. I continue:
In 1941, the last year for which I have the figures, only 85,000 living citizens in Canada had university degrees, while at the other end of the scale there were 360,000 between the ages of six and sixteen who were not at school at all.
I take it that is what the hon. gentleman calls equality of opportunity in the matter of education.
As to the province of Nova Scotia, I should like to endorse what he said. Some of the greatest students and some of the greatest scholars have come out of the province of Nova Scotia. Will you note, sir, the words "come out of". They have scattered across this country, and they have made a tremendous contribution to the education of this country, but I submit that has nothing to do with the argument we are engaged in tonight.
May I say, too, that the Nova Scotia teachers are fine people. I met a lot of them. I spoke to a thousand or so of them last fall at various places, but I find this in the statistics of the dominion bureau of statistics. Of the teachers engaged in teaching in rural schools in the year 1948 in the province of Nova Scotia, from which my hon. friend comes, and a constituency of which he represents, 47 per cent were substandard. Forty-seven per cent of all the rural schools had teachers who were substandard, in that they had not any proper teacher's certificate at all but were teaching on some temporary basis. At

Education
this moment while I speak, unless my figures are wrong, one-eighth of all the teachers of Nova Scotia are teaching on permit. So much for Nova Scotia. I think I have made it perfectly plain that I have nothing against either the fine people, the fine scholars or the fine members of parliament who come from that province. When my hon. friend says there is equality of educational opportunity across this country I beg to differ with him and I think I have proved my case generally in regard to Canada, and in particular in regard to Nova Scotia.
One other point and I shall leave this matter. This is a rather significant one. The member just referred to says that there is now equality of opportunity. Statistics show almost a hundred per cent of the children of the professional classes attending high schools. At the other end of the scale, of the children of those doing unskilled labour only fifteen per cent attend high school. Clothes, books, the need for earning money, for transportation to or board at school, all enter into the picture; and my hon. friend says that there is equality of opportunity.
I should like to pay a tribute to one who made a speech which moved me rather deeply, although it was very short. I refer to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). He brought this debate up to a very high level and kept it on a high plane, but the speaker who came after him, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), "what a fall was there, my countrymen", got down to a rather low level. I shall come back to him.
The hon. member for Greenwood mentioned three points with which I was particularly sympathetic. The first was when he spoke about Queen's university. I happen to be a graduate of that college. The second was when he spoke of the need of the humanities, and the danger that we will get away from the humanities by force of the stress of war or emergency and will be persuaded that education and vocational training are the same thing. He spoke afterwards in favour of a liberal education. He could not talk too long or too much in that particular regard to suit me.
I also noticed his reference to Buchan. Perhaps like myself he is a lover of anything that Tweedsmuir ever wrote. 1 was thinking of a line or two from Buchan which perhaps is not too applicable to education, not as applicable to education as it is to the hereditary greatness of which Buchan was speaking when he said: "The spark once transmitted may smoulder for generations under ashes, but the appointed time will come and it will

flare up to warm the world". So much for the hon. member for Greenwood. I should like to develop his argument somewhat along the same lines. This matter we are now discussing is largely a matter of money, a matter of finance and how that finance will be raised, how it will be applied constitutionally to the thing to which we want it applied.
A great many people are confused about the purposes and aims of education. People put their money into a business and expect to receive dividends in cash; but they are impatient if an investment of cash brings them merely a dividend of the mind and spirit. No money spent on education is to my mind ever wasted.
Now, sir, I could go on to speak about the speech of the hon. member for Kootenay East which, in my opinion, was one of the worst speeches I have ever heard in the house. It was excelled only by one that the hon. member made in my hearing before. I think I shall merely leave it alone. He credited me with two observations of my seatmate-that is forgivable. However, he failed to understand, and he misinterpreted to the house completely, the closing paragraph of the speech I made in opening this debate. He sneered at what he called the irresponsible provinces in Canada, and he sneered at those who introduced and spoke in favour of the resolution in that, as he said, they were doing it for ulterior motives in order to make their salaries better or their living conditions better. If that is not a slander on the teaching profession of this country, then I do not know what it is.
So that there may be no doubt as to my opinion in the matter, I shall leave on record, in the last speech of the evening on this particular subject, one or two further ideas which I did not develop in my opening remarks. Apart from their own convictions, members of the house must have become conscious of the rising tide of popular support for the intent of this resolution. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. Carroll) said he had not received any such report from his home constituents. If he will come up to my office he will see a pile a foot thick consisting of telegrams and letters from organizations and teachers in Nova Scotia.


William F. Carroll: I rise on a question of privilege. I did not say that I did not have any correspondence with any educational parties in Nova Scotia. I did say I had not received anything from the provincial government regarding this matter.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: While I am prepared to accept the hon. member's explanation I would say that we in the House of Commons do not represent provincial authorities. We represent

the people of Canada in the constituencies of Canada. However, in so far as I misinterpreted what the hon. member said, I apologize to him for it.
Let me lay down now in regard to the whole subject two or three main points. First, federal aid herein referred to implies in no way any interference with either the administration or curriculum of education in the provinces, or any other matter in regard to education which comes entirely within provincial jurisdiction.
Second, since the burden of education has become so heavy upon certain provinces and municipalities, and taxation upon real estate for purposes of education has about reached its limit, has indeed become well-nigh unbearable, therefore the dominion government is the only organization with sufficient means to come to their relief.
Third, in view of the inequalities which exist as between province and province, and as between town and country, and because there is a distinct difference in the efficiency of education in urban and rural schools, the sole purpose of this resolution so far as I am concerned is to bring about in the affairs of education in this country an opportunity for education for all the children of the country, and that it should be more nearly equalized, without any consideration of the place of residence of the children, the country of their origin, or the economic status of their parents.
There is one more speech about which I should like to say a word or two-and I approach it more in sorrow than in anger. I refer to the speech of my hon. friend, the popular member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), who did little credit to his undoubted ability. He is so kind to us; he is so courteous to us; he is so polite to us that we find it difficult even to disagree with his opinion. But the hon. member himself I am sure would be the last to say that we should refrain from criticizing his opinion or disagreeing with him for any such reason.
I would say that his opinions with regard to education, as I see them, are the opinions of a feudal baron, perhaps in England, or a seigneur of France in the 17th or 18th centuries-certainly in some period prior to 1789. There can be no doubt about that. As I interpret his ideas, rightly or wrongly, they are long out of date. He conjures up a pretty and pastoral scene, the little child receiving its instructions at its mother's knee, in the shadow of the village church.
Those of us in favour of the resolution believe, of course, in instruction by the mother. We believe of course that a child should be grounded in the faith of his father. But that is not enough. The potential mothers
Education
of the nation must have some education which they can hand on; education is no longer a matter of folklore.
My hon. friend has told us that science may destroy us. I agree with him. Science may destroy us-nay, will destroy us-if we do not join to it a sense of moral values; and education should help the process of building values. I believe education will help promote that mutual understanding that works for peace in the international sphere, and in the domestic field that national unity of which the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) spoke so eloquently on Monday last. I had set aside a quotation from his speech, with the intention of reading it, but at the moment I have mislaid the copy of Hansard in which it appears.
I cannot agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata in his misquotation, or his partial quotation, "ignorance is bliss". That, of course, is not the quotation. He has said that ignorance is bliss. No doubt the cow is a happy and contented animal; but neither my hon. friend nor I, I think, would be prepared to change places with her.
As to his assertion that a soldier needs no more education than enough to teach him to handle a gun-I cannot agree with that either. My hon. friend seems to think that education is something for the privileges. I believe it should be the common right of all. For the hon. member for Temiscouata, whose superior education is so evident in his speeches, education seems to be one thing; but for the common man or, as he said, for the poilu, it is something else. I use that word because it is the one used by my hon. friend. In his opinion that is quite something else.
Indeed he goes so far as to declare that lots of people would be happier if they could not read or write at all. They would then, he says, have time to do some thinking. I suggest that some knowledge is necessary on which thought may be based, or around which it may revolve.
There is perhaps some confusion in my hon. friend's, mind as to the purposes of education. To me education and vocational training-and I wish for a moment to follow the line taken by my hon. friend from Greenwood-are two separate things. No doubt education will assist a man in getting a job, or after he has attained to a position, but that is not its ultimate purpose. If my son is to be a soldier-he was one temporarily- then I want him to be an educated soldier. If he is to be a farmer, then I want him to be an educated farmer. If his occupation is to be one of those classed as humble, I want him nevertheless to be an educated man. In

Education
fact the more humble and less interesting his occupation is, the greater need there is for him to possess an education. If he wishes to live a full and happy life, education can assist him to live it more abundantly. Because a little girl is a dressmaker, should she be denied an appreciation of poetry or of that language which is universal to all races, namely, music? Because a boy is to be a farmer, is that any reason why French or English literature should be a closed book or the arts should have no interest?
I shall say no more. I am thankful that there is no need to convince the majority of members of this house of the benefits of education. There is a greater need to convince them that the federal aid for it which I visualize is for the benefit, not only of our sons and daughters, but of the whole nation.


James Arthur Ross: I was paired with the right hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. Cardiff:: I was paired with a member on the government side. Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. McCubbin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



STATUTORY HOLIDAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, an act to amend the Dominion Day Act and Victoria Day Act-Mr. MacDougall-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 2-Dominion day.
Clarence Gillis: When we last debated the amendment to this particular section I adjourned the debate, and I am now going to conclude my remarks. Mr. Chairman, many of the speakers who are supporting this particular bill have done so on the ground that it is going to be beneficial to the workingmen of this country, and that most of the labour bodies in the country support the idea. The riding which I represent is perhaps one

in which labour is most highly organized in the Dominion of Canada. Steel and coal have been organized one hundred per cent for a good many years. The riding is completely organized in co-operatives and credit unions. To date I have not received any representation from any of these bodies as to the desirability of this particular measure. My riding is pretty well on its toes in seeking legislation which it feels would be beneficial to the men earning a living.
I am not prepared to accept this bill and make changes in the lives of fourteen million people in this country without at least more opportunity of discussing it with the people I represent. As I have said, to date I have received no intimation from any of the organized bodies in the riding as to the desirability of this particular piece of legislation. I have seen,, however, articles and advertisements from the tourist association urging this particular change in the interests of United States tourists who may be coming to this country, so that they may have more time to spend in the country. This same agitation is going on in the United States for changes in some of their statutory holidays. I understand that the move started in the United States, and is being carried on by the tourist association in Canada. I do not think there is any large body of opinion in this country in favour of this particular change.
So far as I am concerned I am not prepared to change Dominion day. As I said on a previous occasion, I am not a great patriot but I am a Canadian and I am proud of the fact. I am not prepared to change the day on which this country was given birth just because someone moves a bill in this house. I believe the sponsor of the bill is absolutely honest about it, and I have no intention of imputing anything but honest motives to him. I am not so sure about the background of this change, and it may go deeper than the hon. member or I realize. I think commercial interests are behind it. I should like to see anyone go over to the United States and tell the government to change the date for celebrating the 4th of July holiday. I believe he would get rather rough treatment. While I am not greatly interested in the Victoria day portion of the bill, I am not prepared to support it until I have had an opportunity of consulting my people.


Mr. Lennard:: Mr. Chairman, as one who is connected with a concern that employs labour, I am opposed to this bill. I am opposed to the amendment, and I intend to vote against both.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to remind the house that there is quite a large group of
Statutory Holidays
organized workers who have been successful in obtaining statutory holidays with pay in their agreements. In most cases the first of July will be one of those holidays. However, in those agreements there is a provision that when the statutory holiday falls on a scheduled day off, such as Saturday or Sunday-Saturday now being recognized as a rest period for workmen-the employees do not receive pay for that holiday. I believe, therefore, that this amendment has some merit in so far as those people are concerned. If the holiday is declared on Monday, rather than on Saturday or Sunday, then they will receive an additional rest day and be paid for it. I thought perhaps the member for Cape Breton South might want to consider that point.
Because of the critical situation which exists today, I realize that it may be necessary for employees to work extra time. However, most of these large corporations are making sufficient profits to enable them to pay time and half or double time, should the employees have to work on Saturday or Sunday to make up for the holiday on Monday. I thought that should be brought to the attention of the house before a vote is called.


Mr. Pouliol:: Mr. Chairman, my main objection to the amendment is that, although the amendment accepts the suggestion for a change, it is altered in such a way that there will be no holiday for those who are trying to calculate on what day the holiday is to be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I realize that it might be difficult to produce a calculation that would satisfy the member for Temiscouata. Speaking in support of the amendment, I do not think there is any more difficulty about computing it in the manner suggested in the amendment than there is in the way suggested in the original bill. Originally, it was suggested that the celebration of the 24th of May might be on the 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th or 30th. But if the amendment carries, the 24th of May would be celebrated on the 21st, the 22nd, the 23rd, the 24th, the 25th, the 26th, or the 27th. It is just as simple as that. The main difference between the original bill and the amendment is that under the original bill the day is celebrated on the original day or as much as six days thereafter. But under the terms of the amendment the day would be celebrated either on the original day or not more than three days previous or three days after. It seems to me to be common sense that if we are going to make a change, we should make the change to the Monday nearest to the day, not as would be the case in some years, to the Monday farthest away from the day.

Statutory Holidays


Jean-François Pouliot: There are few who would be bright enough to understand the matter as well as does the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Coldwell:: I am sure the hon. member for Temiscouata understands it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to
take one or two minutes of the time of the committee to stress one or two points which were made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, which I thought were eminently sound and which, so far as I know, no one has attempted to answer. First, if I remember aright, he said the other evening that this matter had just been brought forward and that we had had really no opportunity to test public opinion or to find out what the people back home thought about it. I agree with that statement. I would feel greatly embarrassed to go to my constituency and have my constituents say to me: You passed this measure but you never discussed it with us. You never had any opportunity to bring it to our attention at all. Second, I should like to say this, and I think everyone in the committee will feel as I do. I think it was an excellent point made by the hon. member. If you went to the Americans and asked them to celebrate the 4th of July on another day, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, I think you would get short shrift. For us to take this step in what seems to me to be a rather casual way is a rather curious commentary on our feelings with regard to our nation's birthday.


Major James William Coldwell: I am going to support the
amendment. I think there is a great deal of import in the bill. After all, anniversaries are not so sanctified as to be unchangeable, as we find when we think of His Majesty the King who was born on December 12 and whose birthday we celebrate about six months later, in June. I am sure that it quite leaves me cold as to whether we celebrate the 24th of May on May 24 or on the Monday nearest to May 24. As long as we celebrate the birthday of this country on a day that will give most people the opportunity to get away for a week end's rest, I think we shall be doing more for the people of this country than by celebrating it on a Wednesday when they have to leave on Wednesday morning and get back on Wednesday night. They will enjoy celebrating the day over the week end more than they will on a day in the middle of the week.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: In my opinion, the nays
have it.


Major James William Coldwell: We had better stand.
Amendment (Mr. Graydon) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 35.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to say a word in
support of the point of view put forward by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I am not in favour of our passing this type of legislation without having some direction from the people we represent. If organized labour and the people I represent think that this is a move to their advantage, I am quite willing to support it. But I think we are doing something here to change the habits and the customs of the Canadian people, without giving it due consideration. Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I might say that when it comes to a question of changing the day on which we celebrate the 1st of July, it does not leave me cold. I believe that in this nation we must give some consideration to the things we stand for and not be governed entirely by considerations of comfort and convenience.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: For the benefit of the hon. member for Kootenay West, I should like to suggest to him that I believe I could, in all conscience, interpret the wishes of a large union organization in his riding. It is a union that is affiliated with the same organization that I have in my riding. They have an agreement which I have already outlined. I do not know on what day the 1st of July falls this year; I will use the 1st of July as an example. Should it fall on Saturday or Sunday, the men will not be paid for that holiday. But if Monday is declared a holiday, they will receive one additional day's holiday with pay this year. I am sure that is a union principle-holidays with pay.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Chairman, I presume that when I speak I close the debate.


An hon. Member:: This is in committee.


John Lorne MacDougall: I think the answer to my good friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South has been given by the Vancouver and New Westminster district trades and labour council. I received a copy of this bill several months ago. As to the allegation of lack of opportunity to study this bill, it just does not seem to add up; because this bill has been before the house for approximately ten days. When I suggested to the president and the secretary of the Vancouver and New Westminster district trades and labour council that I should be happy to discuss this bill with

them at any time they were desirous of calling a meeting, those gentlemen, who were certainly not of the same political stripe as I, said that there was no occasion to do that because as far as they were concerned their organization was wholly and solely behind the bill. The hon. member for Cape Breton South stated the other evening that he wanted to have some word from his constituency or that he wanted to see what was said in the editorials appearing in the press the following day. If we as members of the House of Commons are going to pass legislation entirely upon what is said in editorials in the press which appear on the day following the discussion of measures, I say that we are losing our sense of responsible government. I could have read, the other night, several extracts for the edification of hon. members as to the favour with which this bill is being received not only in my own city of Vancouver but in the cities of Toronto and Saskatoon. But we do not particularly feel that that is apropos of this bill. We have agreed to the bill in principle. I do not think that the argument of the hon. member for Cape Breton South is a sound one. If he wants to abrogate responsible government, then he is going about it in the quickest and shortest way, if we are to allow ourselves to be governed by editorials. Surely we are adult people with adult minds, capable of making them up in connection with this bill without reading editorials.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay this measure because I realize the hon. member wants to get a vote on it and get it through. I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Kootenay East. He says that he can interpret to this house the opinions of the mine, mill and smelter workers union of British Columbia. I do not think he can; at least he has not presented any documentary evidence to the house showing that he has ever been consulted by that organization upon this particular question.
I am just as closely in touch with a larger section of the trade union movement of this country as he is, and as far as I am concerned I do not know what their wishes are on this particular matter because they have not made any representation on it.


John Lorne MacDougall: Silence gives consent.


Clarence Gillis: No, it does not. The hon. member who has just taken his seat got off on his left foot when he suggested that I was guided by editorials, and so forth, in regard to this matter. That is not true.
This is not ordinary legislation. This is something that affects every man, woman and child in this country. It is changing the day
Statutory Holidays
that was fixed by the fathers of confederation, and it deserves more consideration than has been given to it.
The hon. member says that he received a copy of this bill two months ago. Where did he get a copy of this bill two months ago, and who sent it to him? Who drafted that bill? These bills are generally drafted in the House of Commons after consultation with the law officers of the crown.


John Lorne MacDougall: I drafted it.


Clarence Gillis: Where did this bill come from two months ago, and who urged the hon. member to bring it up in the house?
I am informed that this matter was brought to the attention of the trades and labour congress last September; that is the national body. It went to the floor of the convention, went back to the resolution committee and the trades and labour congress in its last national convention brought in a recommendation against this particular thing. I think the attitude of the hon. member for Kootenay East is an irresponsible one-I do not like to say that, but I cannot help thinking it-when he says that the unions of this country are looking for more holidays with pay. That is not true. By agreement the workers of this country today are working a forty or forty-four-hour week. That applies to most of them. By agreement some of them have statutory holidays, but a lot of them have not statutory holidays with pay.
When you stop for a moment and think that this country is going into a terrific defence program, with a very tight manpower situation and with the possibility of hours of labour having to be revised in order to meet that production, it is a very irresponsible attitude to take to suggest that we are going to provide more holidays with pay and disregard the wishes of the great majority of the people of the country.
As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to support anything in the house that is reasonable and fair after due consideration; but I am also mindful of the fact that in the house I represent people; that I do not just come here to use my imagination and throw my weight around in any direction that I see fit. I come in here and try to interpret to hon. members the wishes of the people of my constituency. That is my job.


John Lorne MacDougall: I am doing the same thing.


Clarence Gillis: I try to interpret the attitude of this house to my people whom I represent. I am prepared to make a decision on any matter that comes before this house in the field of legislation dealing with economic matters and that kind of thing, because

Statutory Holidays
these things are discussed from time to time. You have a guide on them; you have some knowledge of what the desires of your people are; but I am not prepared to vote in this house, with the information I have at the present time, that we should change the present statutory arrangement for holidays in this country which may mean, as my hon. friend over here says, less production, more holidays, more pay. The hours of work in this country today are not so unreasonable. I am going to vote against this. I am not fussy about what the editorials in the newspapers say, but I am particular as to what the reaction of the people whom I represent will be on this particular matter. As I said bef ore, I have not had any intimation as to what the steel workers, the miners or the fishermen in the part of the country from which I come, think on this particular legislation, and until I have some intimation that is going to be my attitude.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay East for his kind suggestion and attempted guidance; but in view of the record I do not feel safe in accepting it. All the unions in my constituency wanted union dues deducted for income tax but the hon. member voted against it. All the unions in my constituency wanted price control; the hon. member voted against it. Most of the unions in my constituency have supported the teachers federation of British Columbia in their plea for federal aid to education; the hon. member voted against it. Therefore, in view of the hon. member's record with respect to requests of the unions that I have the honour to represent I had better make certain and consult them before I support this bill.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the sponsor of this bill a question? If the bill is reported by the committee tonight, is it his intention to ask the house to give it third reading tonight?


John Lorne MacDougall: Absolutely.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member indicates that it is. In that event I propose to oppose the bill, and for various reasons. I share entirely the views expressed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. In the first place, sir, I think that the house has not given this matter adequate consideration; and if we are to be asked to report the bill out of committee tonight and give it third reading tonight, it seems to me we shall have done an act in haste that the house may well yet repent.
I am suggesting that this matter should not be pressed, but that it should be allowed to stand for further consideration. The committee knows perfectly well that when this 
matter came before the house earlier this week, on Tuesday evening, it got practically no consideration. There was no debate at all. The house was actually caught off guard. The bill passed second reading and slipped into committee without hon. members fully realizing what had happened. Very few members were in the house at the time. The first section was passed in committee before many hon. members realized what had happened. It was just when we reached the second section that the full impact of what was happening really struck some hon. members.
To rush the bill through its remaining stages tonight makes a travesty, or comes very close to making a travesty, of the procedure in the sovereign parliament of Canada. This, sir, is a more serious matter than some hon. members have undertaken to treat it. In the course of the debate within the last few minutes there has been a rather striking levity, and shall I say light-heartedness, demonstrated in certain quarters of the house. I do not think it reflects any credit on the bill or on the way the house is addressing itself to its duty with respect to the bill.
If the bill has merit, then those who may be supporting it should have no fear that the merits will be able to stand up this week, next week or at a later stage of the session, after members have had an adequate opportunity to consider the bill and, principally, after the people of Canada have had an opportunity of appreciating precisely what is involved in the bill, and making the weight of public opinion felt through their representatives in the House of Commons.
Public opinion has not been felt in the house yet. The matter has had relatively little publicity. There are few members in the house, probably not more than a very few, who have had any reaction whatsoever from the public with respect to the public's view on the bill. My belief is that the public is not, generally speaking, aware that such a bill is before the House of Commons at the present time.
To those who express such confidence in the merits of the bill I would just suggest this, that if their confidence is well founded there need be no hesitation on their part in allowing the matter to stand until public opinion in this regard is known.
Was there any expression of opinion prior to the introduction of the bill? We all know there are people who, when a fine day comes in the spring or in the early summer, will always say-if it happens to be the 24th of May or the 1st of July-"Is it not a pity that it does not come on a Monday so that we could have a long holiday?" But, sir, I am

not so sure that if many of the people who react that way to fine weather were to sit down to deliberate seriously on the question as to whether they wished the natal day of their country changed by act of parliament, they would not say, "Wait a minute, now; this is something more than just choosing a day of fine weather."


Jean-François Pouliot: What about bad weather?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member for
Rosetown-Biggar spoke about having "a week end of rest". How many people get much rest out of week ends, when they go up to the country and spend hour after hour driving, bumper to bumper, on the main highways outside some of our cities? "Weekend rest" is often not rest at all. For many people it is just a week-end lark from which they come home dead tired.


Jean-François Pouliot: Physically tired, mentally
rested.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But that is not the principle before the house. The principal consideration in the matter ought to be public opinion. If the people of Canada want to have Victoria day celebrated on the nearest Monday or on the Monday following, then, very well, I think it is the duty of the house to conform to the wishes of the people. If the people of Canada wish the natal day of this nation to be observed on a day other than the 1st day of July, then the wishes of the people should be carried into effect in this parliament.
But I do not believe in running ahead in a slap-dash way, and enacting this bill before the people of the country are aware that the bill, with the implications it has, has come before the House of Commons. And, sir, if I had no other reason for recommending caution to the committee, and recommending delay so as to permit public opinion to be known, and to give time to consider the bill adequately, that lack was supplied a few moments ago in a remark made by the hon. member for Kootenay East when, in a most jocular and light-hearted way, he said that what certain people in his riding wanted was more time off with pay.
Sir, if that reflects responsible opinion in this country, under conditions such as we face today, then I say, "God help the. country." Yes, it is just as serious as that. And here is a remark by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys which I commend to the house, and to the hon. member for Kootenay East particularly, as being worthy of his consideration. It is a remark the minister in question reiterated in another speech today. This is what he said on the first occasion:
We are kidding ourselves to think we can work shorter hours and maintain a higher standard of
Statutory Holidays
living and, at the same time, defend our country and help defend the other free nations of the world.


Mr. Dickey:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Sir, if this country, along with the other nations of the free world, is facing an emergency of the serious proportions described to us by the Prime Minister only the day before yesterday, and by other members in the house-I have no time to listen to the gibberish of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). If he has no serious contribution to make to the debate, then he had better contribute nothing. Silence would be a constructive contribution on his part to the debate, and perhaps that is all we will expect from him under the circumstances.
But I say that if the Prime Minister was right in his picture of the emergency facing this country-and I think he was right-and if other hon. members were correct in giving endorsation to the resolution the Prime Minister sponsored-and I think they were right in doing so-then they cannot honestly, faced with an inflationary condition such as was described in the house, and the pinch of which is being felt by a great many people in this country today, come out with lighthearted remarks like those, in a time like this, and say, "What we want in this country is more time off, with pay."
What we need to do, if we are going to beat inflation in this country, and play the part that each of us should play in combating inflation, is to knuckle down to this job so that each of us will contribute his part toward increasing the productivity of the country.
It seems to me that for many reasons which have appeared during the debate it would be a grave reflection upon parliament, and our estimate of our parliamentary duty, to press this legislation swiftly before seeking to ascertain public opinion. We ought to wait. We ought to give public opinion time to make itself felt. We ought to give the public a chance to know what is being done here. I urge the sponsor of the bill, for whose sincerity I profess the highest respect, not to press the measure now, and to rely upon the merits he sees in the measure, and let those merits speak for themselves next week or the week after, rather than invite the house to do something which I think would bring discredit on the bill.
If there is merit in the bill, then let us not in this parliament bring discredit on that merit by proceeding hastily and thus denying to the bill the serious consideration it ought to have.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, there is one consideration of some importance which has not been mentioned, and which really should

Statutory Holidays
preclude the possibility of this bill's being dealt with at the present time. Has it occurred to hon. members that right across this country organizations of every kind have made arrangements for holidays, right through until the latter part of the year? Has it occurred to those hon. members that thousands of hotels, which render a valuable and continuing service to the people of Canada, have already made commitments to serve various organizations on dates which have been fixed in relation to holidays already settled? Those holidays have been settled by thousands of calendars printed some time ago and which are in the hands of the people of this country. The bill would have the effect of changing those holidays right away and would cause a measure of confusion which I hope all members will bear in mind, and which would affect many people who may perhaps believe in this idea but who would not wish to have it come into effect this year.
I must say that this bill is in a position somewhat different from a number of bills which raise new but extremely important principles, where we are actually called upon simply to exercise our judgment in relation to what may be right or wrong in principle. Here we have a simple and practical problem. Do the people want these changes made? These holidays have been celebrated on these particular days, in one case for eighty years t and in the other case for a shorter period although for a great many years. People have become accustomed to that.
It is quite possible that the people of Canada want this change. For the first reason I have mentioned particularly, and for the second as well, I do not think that the people who would be affected have had an opportunity to express their opinions in regard to something that is deeply embedded in the habits of our people. I for one propose to oppose this bill, not because it may not be a good idea but because I do not think we know yet what is the feeling of the people. In any event it should not go into effect until next year.


Major James William Coldwell: The leader of the opposition has raised a point that deserves more than passing consideration. There is no doubt that people have made arrangements for May 24 and July 1. However, this difficulty could be easily remedied by amending the bill so that it would not come into effect until January 1, 1952.


John Lorne MacDougall: Agreed.


Major James William Coldwell: The matter could be left as it is this year.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. member for Cape Breton South with the utmost pleasure, as I always do, because he has the gift of speech. He reminds me of a former member, H. H. Stevens of Vancouver. I wonder if he will like my comparing him with a Conservative. However, it is only as to his manner. Unfortunately I must say that I think he was wrong because he led us to assume that there would be additional holidays. There will not be one hour more than there is at the present time. The date will be changed, that is all. If my hon. friend, who is such a gifted speaker, had considered that, he would not have spoken as he did. I now come to the hon. member for Eglinton.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whom does he remind you of?


Jean-François Pouliot: He reminds me of Cicero when he spoke against Catiline. Apparently he lost all sense of proportion. He gave us a fine Lenten sermon on our duties as members of parliament, on our standards of life and on the ethics of the sponsor of the bill. Why did he waste his energies like that? I believe in making the least effort at any time. Why did he show such indignation over a matter like this? He had no reason to be indignant.
I am glad the storm is over and we have come back to sunshine. The hon. member spoke of sunshine. Is it necessary to have bad weather in order to celebrate Dominion day and Victoria day properly? The hon. member said that members of parliament were not serious. Let me tell him that one may not be serious even when one is speaking solemnly. He knows that.
I am in favour of the bill and I hope it will be passed. Whether it is to be brought into force now or on January 1 does not matter to me. I seldom agree with the leader of the opposition, but let me tell him that he has offered the first sensible argument against the bill. I am glad to be able to say that, because this bill does not entail a matter of major policy. The same argument could have been used by a Liberal. Even if it was used by the leader of the opposition I must admit that it carries weight.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, why is a hen and what is the difference between a piece of string? That is a foolish question, is it not?
I have heard that conundrum for many years and the answer is: Because St. Patrick's day is on the fourth of July.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Confederation day for you is April 1.


Gordon Francis Higgins: As the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre has said, All Fools' day is our confederation day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is right, in Newfoundland. The question and answer I have just propounded is as ridiculous as the purpose of this bill. In saying that, I do not cast any reflection upon the hon. member who has proposed that bill nor do I doubt his bona fides in offering the bill to the house. We must remember that a country that has no sentiments or traditions is never going to be a nation. All we have in any country or in any nation is its sentiments and traditions.
I am a brand new Canadian, as you all know. I like it. As we used to say back home, I am as green as a var bough. Perhaps I should say I am now as green as a Canadian var bough. The Canadian traditions and Canadian sentiments which I have adopted are as important to the people in this country as they are to those at home who have their own sentiments and traditions.
, of our traditions, which is quite new, is Memorial day which falls on July 1. That is in memory of soldiers killed in the first world war. It was on July 1, 1916, that the Royal Newfoundland regiment suffered such terrible losses. Ninety per cent of those who went into battle were casualties. That day has been celebrated ever since. We now call the same day "Dominion day", but as far as Newfoundland is concerned it is still Memorial day. That day is going to be kept by us whether the date is changed or not.
Coming back to the main point, as I said before, tradition and sentiment must be considered,. Unless that tradition and that sentiment are fully respected I cannot see how on. members of this house can consider voting in favour of this bill. My personal feeling is to vote definitely and positively against it. I am not particularly interested in the clause of the bill dealing with the other holiday, but I am interested in Dominion day. Newfoundland came into confederation -and I think this is the feeling of all Newfoundland members-ready to accept all the traditions of Canada. I understood Dominion day was the biggest day of the year. If that is so and you are going to do away with that day by this bill, you must remember that you are not only doing away with a holiday; you are doing away with a day that marks the birth of this great dominion. And you are going to do away with that tradition for what-to give people a holiday? People do not need holidays as badly as that.
Statutory Holidays
I do not think the sponsor of this bill really has given the matter the consideration it deserves. Either that is the case or the people out in his part of the country are not the Canadians I thought they were. I say quite honestly and sincerely, Mr. Chairman, that I believe Canada should preserve all the traditions it has. It is not a particularly old country, but if it is going to be the great nation we all believe it will become then the day marking confederation should be observed in such a way that succeeding generations will feel that we have kept faith with the founders.
For these reasons, reasons of sentiment and tradition if you will, I oppose this measure, and I feel sure that at least the other members from my part of Canada have the same view about it. I feel that the reasons given by the hon. member for Cape Breton South could be very well incorporated into my remarks. I see no reason for going further into the matter, since the hon. member has done it for me very well indeed. I also believe the remarks of my leader, as the hon. member for Temiscouata has just commented, should be given very great consideration. So, Mr. Chairman, I am definitely and positively opposed to this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the hon. member a question just before he sits down?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I was not going to sit down. Mr. Knowles: Does the hon. member know on what day of the week July 1 will be celebrated this year?


Gordon Francis Higgins: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This year July 1 will be celebrated on Monday, July 2. That change is provided for by chapter 49 of the revised statutes of Canada. Already the law has changed it to July 2 for this year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Well a famous judge once remarked, "The law is a h'ass", and that might very well be the case here. However, even if the formal holiday is held on Monday, the occasion is celebrated on Sunday.


An hon. Member:: Question.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You mean you are questioning whether it is?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. Since Dominion day is dealt with in section 1 the hon. member is out of order, because we are on section 2.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am dealing with clause 1, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: But we are on clause 2.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Clause 2 reads:
Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the first Monday following the thirtieth day of June

Statutory Holidays
shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Dominion day.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: That is part of clause 1.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am indeed sorry; I thought we were dealing with the second paragraph of the first clause. I did not know it had been passed. According to one clock, Mr. Chairman, it is eleven o'clock; I do not know which clock we are going by. Clause 2 reads:
Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the first Monday following the twenty-third day of May shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Victoria day.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. It being eleven o'clock, I now report progress.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow, government day, we shall take first the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister to constitute a department of defence production; then the second reading of Bill No. 24, to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council. After that we shall move second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and if time is left we shall proceed with Bill No. 6.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 23, 1951